TAC 2011 Road Design Guidelines

Connecting Knowledge and People  Le lien entre les gens et le savoir
TO: Holders of the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (1999)
FROM: Transportation Association of Canada
SUBJECT: December 2011 Updates to the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Enclosed please find 94 new and/or revised pages for insertion into your copy of the Geometric Design
Guide for Canadian Roads. Revisions in this package affect the following items:
Title Page – Part 1 and 2

Chapter 1.1 – Philosophy
Chapter 1.2 – Design Controls
Chapter 2.1 – Alignment and Lane Configuration
Chapter 2.2 – Cross Section Elements
Chapter 2.3 – Intersections
Chapter 3.1 – Roadside Safety
To update your Guide simply follow these instructions:

1. Remove the Title Page from Part 1 and Part 2 and insert the new Title Pages.
2. Remove pages 1.1.4.3 – 1.1.4.4 and replace with new pages 1.1.4.3 -1.1.4.4.
3. Remove pages 1.2.i -1.2.ii and replace with new pages 1.2.i -1.2.ii.
4. Remove pages 1.2.5.5 – 1.2.5.8 and insert new pages 1.2.5.5 – 1.2.5.10.
5. Remove pages 1.2.R.1 – 1.2.R.2 and replace with new pages 1.2.R.1 – 1.2.R.2.
6. Remove pages 2.1.i – 2.1.vi and replace with new pages 2.1.i – 2.1.vi.
7. Remove pages 2.1.2.3 – 2.1.2.10 and replace with new pages 2.1.2.3 – 2.1.2.10.
8. Remove pages 2.1.2.15 - 2.1.2.16 and replace with new pages 2.1.2.15 – 2.1.2.16.
10. Remove pages 2.1.R.1 – 2.1.R.2 and replace with new page 2.1.R.1 – 2.1.R.2.
11. Remove pages 2.2.iii – 2.2.iv and replace with new pages 2.2.iii – 2.2.iv.
13. Remove pages 2.2.4.3 -2.2.4.4 and replace with new pages 2.2.4.3 -2.2.4.4.
15. Remove pages 2.2.10.7 – 2.2.10.8 and replace with new page 2.2.10.7 – 2.2.10.8.
... / 2
Transportation Association of Canada Association des transports du Canada

2323 St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa, Canada K1G 4J8 2323 boul. St-Laurent, Ottawa, Canada K1G 4J8
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ■ Fax (613) 736-1395 Tél. (613) 736-1350 ■ Télécopieur (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
-2 -
17. Remove pages 2.3.i – 2.3.vi and replace with new pages 2.3.i – 2.3.vi.
18. Remove page 2.3.2.15 – 2.3.2.16 and replace with new pages 2.3.2.15 – 2.3.2.16.
20. Remove pages 2.3.12.1 – 2.3.12.6 and replace with pages 2.3.12.1 – 2.3.12.6.
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the
TAC secretariat.
Transportation
Association of
Canada
Geometric
Design
Guide for
Canadian
Roads
Part 1
September 1999
Updated December 2011
The Transportation Association of Canada is a national association with a mission to promote the
provision of safe, secure, efficient, effective and environmentally and financially sustainable
transportation services in support of Canada’s social and economic goals. The association is a
neutral forum for gathering or exchanging ideas, information and knowledge on technical guidelines
and best practices. In Canada as a whole, TAC has a primary focus on roadways and their strategic
linkages and inter-relationships with other components of the transportation system. In urban
areas, TAC’s primary focus is on the movement of people, goods and services and its relationship
with land use patterns.
L’ATC est une association d’envergure nationale dont la mission est de promouvoir la sécurité, la
sûreté, l’efficience, l’efficacité et le respect de l’environnement dans le cadre de la prestation de
services financièrement durables de transport, le tout à l’appui des objectifs sociaux et économiques
du Canada. L’ATC est une tribune neutre de collecte et d’échange d’idées, d’informations et de
connaissances à l’appui de l’élaboration de lignes directrices techniques et de bonnes pratiques.
À l’échelle du pays, l’Association s’intéresse principalement au secteur routier et à ses liens et
interrelations stratégiques avec les autres composantes du réseau de transport. En milieu urbain,
l’Association s’intéresse non seulement au transport des personnes et des marchandises, mais
encore à la prestation de services à la collectivité et aux incidences de toutes ces activités sur les
modèles d’aménagement du territoire.
© Transportation Association of Canada, 1999

2323 St. Laurent Boulevard
Ottawa, Canada K1G 4J8
Tel. (613) 736-1350
Fax: (613) 736-1395
Web site: www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 1-55187-131-9
December 2011
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
In some senses, this Guide is no different from The guidelines and design domains provided in
previous versions. It is intended to provide a this Guide are based on prevailing and predicted
framework for designers which promotes vehicle dimensions and performance, driver
efficiency in design and construction, economy, behaviour and performance, and current
and consistency and safety for the road user. technologies. For instance, at this time, specific
This Guide, however, moves away from advice on the use of design flexibility within CSS
“standards” as the basis for achieving these or CSD processes is not addressed within the
goals, to introduce a new concept called the various sections of the Guide. However, as
Design Domain. The intention is to provide knowledge in these fields evolves, it is expected
designers with a greater opportunity to exercise that the resulting guidelines will be revised and
their critical engineering judgement - with better updated periodically, and that enhanced
information on which to base that judgement. application heuristics will be provided to address
particular design applications, including the
This change in approach has occurred in part exercise of design flexibility within CSS/CSD
because of the difficulty of applying the concept processes.
of “standards”, as they are thought of in other
fields, to a process that necessarily requires the Changes in the design domains in this
designer to exercise professional judgement and document over time in the future, or differences
expertise in their application to road design. The between these and previous “standards”, do not
transition has also come about because of the imply that roads designed on the basis of former
emergence of road safety research, which is “standards” are necessarily inadequate. Rather,
bringing new data to bear on the road design the new design framework and approach can be
task. This Guide provides designers with expected to generate designs for new facilities
guidelines about the use of new data, where and rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing
these are available. This is intended to enhance facilities that more appropriately reflect evolving
the designer’s ability to explicitly assess the knowledge, as well as the changing view of
safety impacts of design alternatives in the society on the role of the roadway within our
context of the impacts which such changes may urban and rural communities.
have on other aspects of road performance
It should be noted that gradual adoption of design
including operations, the environment and the
dimensions based, for example, on collision
economics of construction.
experience or on the exercise of design flexibility
This change of approach is also intended to within a CSD/CSS approach, may not have the
provide greater flexibility to the designer in same theoretical margins of safety under most
addressing issues of concern related to operating conditions as traditional “standards”
constrained, unusual, or sensitive design based on laws of physics. However, they will
environments. Such flexibility provides a vehicle be more realistic, and may result in road designs
through which designers can respond more that are less costly to construct, or provide a
positively to the emerging design process roadway that is more responsive to community
referred to as Context Sensitive Design (CSD) and stakeholder needs.
or Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). CSD/
This Guide places a much greater emphasis on
CSS is not a specific design technique. Rather,
the role of the designer in the design process. It
it is a design process that is highly collaborative
requires more explicit analysis of the road safety
in nature in which – at the outset of the design
impacts of various alternatives, and where
process and prior to any design being
possible suggests a basis on which to carry out
undertaken – public consultation may be used
such analysis. It places greater demands on the
to help establish the desired functionality,
designer in terms of exercising skills, knowledge,
nature, and character of the roadway from the
and professional judgment. It emphasizes the
point of view of all stakeholders. Once a
responsibility of the designer to properly and fully
consensus has been reached on this
inform those responsible for policies, which affect
fundamental vision, the design process moves
all aspects of cost effective road design, of the
forward within this context; hence the reference
potential consequences of their decisions.
to CSD or CSS.
December 2011 Page 1.1.4.3

Philosophy
Page 1.1.4.4 September 1999

1.2 DESIGN CONTROLS

1.2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1.2.1.1
1.2.2 HUMAN FACTORS ..................................................................................... 1.2.2.1

1.2.2.1 Expectancy .................................................................................... 1.2.2.1
1.2.2.2 Reaction ........................................................................................ 1.2.2.1
1.2.2.3 Design Response .......................................................................... 1.2.2.2
1.2.3 SPEED ........................................................................................................ 1.2.3.1

1.2.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 1.2.3.1
1.2.3.2 Desired Speed ............................................................................... 1.2.3.1
1.2.3.3 Design Speed ................................................................................ 1.2.3.2
1.2.3.4 Operating Speed ............................................................................ 1.2.3.3
1.2.3.5 Running Speed .............................................................................. 1.2.3.3
1.2.3.6 Posted Speed ................................................................................ 1.2.3.4
1.2.3.7 Limitations of Design Speed Approach .......................................... 1.2.3.5
1.2.3.8 Design Domain: Design Speed Selection ...................................... 1.2.3.6
1.2.4 DESIGN VEHICLES ..................................................................................... 1.2.4.1

1.2.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 1.2.4.1
1.2.4.2 Vehicle Classifications ................................................................... 1.2.4.1
1.2.4.3 Vehicle Characteristics .................................................................. 1.2.4.2
1.2.4.4 Vehicle Turning Paths .................................................................. 1.2.4.10
1.2.4.5 Selecting a Design Vehicle .......................................................... 1.2.4.10
1.2.5 SIGHT DISTANCE ....................................................................................... 1.2.5.1

1.2.5.1 Criteria Used in Calculating Sight Distance ................................... 1.2.5.1
1.2.5.2 Stopping Sight Distance ................................................................ 1.2.5.2
1.2.5.3 Passing Sight Distance .................................................................. 1.2.5.5
1.2.5.4 Decision Sight Distance ................................................................ 1.2.5.8
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 1.2.R.1
December 2011 Page 1.2.i

Design Controls
Tables
Table 1.2.2.1 Perception and Reaction Time Design Domain ............................. 1.2.2.2
Table 1.2.4.1 Design Dimensions for Passenger Cars ....................................... 1.2.4.2
Table 1.2.4.2 Design Dimensions for Commercial Vehicles ............................... 1.2.4.2
Table 1.2.4.3 Design Dimensions for Buses ....................................................... 1.2.4.3
Table 1.2.4.4 Minimum Design Turning Radii for Representative Trucks,
for 180º Turns ................................................................................ 1.2.4.3
Table 1.2.5.1 Object Height Design Domain ....................................................... 1.2.5.2
Table 1.2.5.2 Coefficient of Friction for Wet Pavements ..................................... 1.2.5.3
Table 1.2.5.3 Stopping Sight Distance for Automobiles
and Trucks with Antilock Braking Systems .................................... 1.2.5.4
Table 1.2.5.4 Stopping Sight Distances for Trucks
with Conventional Braking Systems .............................................. 1.2.5.5
Table 1.2.5.5 Minimum Passing Sight Distance - AASHTO
(design) Methodology ..................................................................... 1.2.5.6
Table 1.2.5.6 Minimum Passing Sight Distance - Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Canada (marking) Methodology .......... 1.2.5.7
Table 1.2.5.7 Decision Sight Distance ................................................................ 1.2.5.9
Figures
Figure 1.2.3.1 Operating Speed Approach for Design of Two-lane,
Two-way Roadways ...................................................................... 1.2.3.9
Figure 1.2.4.1 Passenger Car (P) Dimensions .................................................... 1.2.4.4
Figure 1.2.4.2 Light Single-Unit (LSU) Truck Dimensions .................................... 1.2.4.5
Figure 1.2.4.3 Medium Single-Unit (MSU) Truck Dimensions ............................... 1.2.4.5
Figure 1.2.4.4 Heavy Single-Unit (HSU) Truck Dimensions .................................. 1.2.4.6
Figure 1.2.4.5 WB-19 Tractor-Semitrailer Dimensions ........................................ 1.2.4.6
Figure 1.2.4.6 WB-20 Tractor-Semitrailer Dimensions ........................................ 1.2.4.7
Figure 1.2.4.7 A-Train Double (ATD) Dimensions................................................. 1.2.4.7
Figure 1.2.4.8 B-Train Double (BTD) Dimensions ................................................ 1.2.4.8
Figure 1.2.4.9 Standard Single-Unit (B-12) Bus Dimensions ................................ 1.2.4.8
Figure 1.2.4.10 Articulated Bus (A-BUS) Dimensions ............................................ 1.2.4.9
Figure 1.2.4.11 Intercity Bus (I-BUS) Dimensions .................................................. 1.2.4.9
Figure 1.2.5.1 Elements of Passing Sight Distance ............................................. 1.2.5.6
Figure 1.2.5.2 Required Passing Sight Distance for Passenger
Cars & Trucks in Comparison with AASHTO Criteria .................... 1.2.5.7
Page 1.2.ii December 2011

Table 1.2.5.4 Stopping Sight manoeuvre as shown in Figure 1.2.5.1, which

Distances for Trucks divides the required sight distance into four
with Conventional elements.
Braking Systems
d1 Initial manoeuvre distance. The initial
manoeuvre period consists of a perception
Design Stopping Sight Distance (m) and reaction time and the time it takes for
Speed from for Trucks with the passing driver to move the vehicle from a
(km/h) Table 1.2.5.3 Conventional trailing position to a position of encroachment
Braking8 into the opposing lane of traffic.
40 45 60 - 70 d2 Distance travelled while the passing vehicle

50 60 - 65 85 - 110 occupies the opposing lane.
60 75 - 85 105 - 130 d3 Clearance length. The distance between the

70 95 - 110 135 - 180 opposing vehicle and the passing vehicle at
the end of the passing vehicle’s manoeuvre.
80 115 - 140 155 - 210 Observed distances vary from 30 m to 90 m.
90 130 - 170 190 - 265
d4 Distance travelled by the opposing vehicle
100 160 - 210 235 - 330 after being seen by the passing vehicle. The
110 180 - 250 260 - 360 opposing vehicle is assumed to be travelling
at the same speed as the passing vehicle,
120 200 - 290 Not Available therefore this distance is equal to two thirds
130 230 - 330 Not Available of d2.
Certain assumptions about driver behaviour are

4
for the effects of grade. It has been noted that made when computing passing sight distance.
many drivers, particularly those in automobiles,
do not compensate completely (i.e. by • The vehicle being passed travels at a uniform
acceleration or deceleration) for the changes in speed.
4
speed caused by grade. It is also noted that, in
many cases, the sight distance available on • The passing vehicle has reduced speed and
downgrades is greater than on upgrades, which trails the overtaken vehicle as it enters a
can help to provide the necessary corrections passing section.
for grade.
• The driver of the passing vehicle requires a
1.2.5.3 Passing Sight Distance short period of time to determine that there
is a clear passing section ahead and begin
Passing sight distance is used for rural two-lane the passing manoeuvre.
roads to allow drivers to pass slower traffic by
using the opposing lane. The driver of the passing • Passing is accomplished under a delayed
vehicle must be able to see far enough ahead to start and a hurried return to the original lane
complete the manoeuvre without interfering with while facing traffic. The passing vehicle
traffic in the opposing lane. Drivers will accelerates during the manoeuvre, to a
occasionally pass slower vehicles without being speed 15 km/h higher than that of the
able to see sufficient distance ahead, however passed vehicle.
to design for this type of driver behaviour would
not result in adequate levels of service since • There will be a suitable distance between
more cautious drivers would not attempt to pass. the vehicle completing the passing
Thus passing sight distance should be based manoeuvre and the oncoming vehicles.
on the length needed to complete a passing
September 1999 Page 1.2.5.5

Design Controls
21
Figure 1.2.5.1 Elements of Passing Sight Distance
first phase opposing vehicle appears

passing vehicle when passing vehicle
A reaches point A B
second phase d1 1/3 d2
2/3 d2
d1 d2 d3 d4
Two methodologies exist to calculate Passing in conjunction with the design speed. It assumes
Sight Distance. The first (design) is based on that the driver can safely complete the pass if
the 1994 AASHTO methodology using an Eye an oncoming vehicle appears at the end of Phase
Height of 1.05 m and an Object Height of 1.3 m 1 (d1 + d2/3) in Figure 1.2.5.1. The second
methodology (marking) is based on the Manual
Table 1.2.5.5 Minimum Passing of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for
21
Sight Distance – Canada35 using an Eye Height and an Object
AASHTO (design) Height of 1.15 m in conjunction with the higher
Methodology of the operating (85th percentile) or posted speed
and assumes that the driver can safely abort
Design Assumed Speeds Minimum the passing maneuver if an oncoming vehicle
Speed (km/h) Passing appears at the end of Phase 1 (d1 + d2/3) in
(km/h) Sight Figure 1.2.5.1. The MUTCD for Canada (marking)
Passed Passing Distance methodology results in substantially shorter
Vehicle Vehicle (m) passing sight distances for all speeds.36
(rounded)
The minimum passing sight distance equals the
30 29 44 220
addition of d1 through d4 in Figure 1.2.5.1. Table
40 36 51 290 1.2.5.5 summarizes the minimum passing sight
distances for the AASHTO (design) methodology,
50 44 59 350
which utilizes design speed. Table 1.2.5.6
60 51 66 410 summarizes the minimum passing sight
70 59 74 490 distances for the MUTCD for Canada (marking)
methodology, which utilizes the higher of the
80 65 80 550 operating or the posted speed. These distances
90 73 88 610 are based on the models for a passenger car
passing a passenger car. Designers should
100 79 94 680 make allowances if there are a number of larger
110 85 100 730 vehicles (e.g. LCVs) on the roadway.
120 91 106 800
The minimum passing sight distances based on
130 97 112 860 the AASHTO (design) methodology were derived
Page 1.2.5.6 December 2011

5
Figure 1.2.5.2 Required Passing Sight Distance for Passenger Cars & Trucks
in Comparison with AASHTO Criteria
Table 1.2.5.6 Minimum Passing from field studies carried out between 1938 and
21
Sight Distance –
(35)
1941 . The derivation of the MUTCD (marking)
Manual of Uniform methodology values is uncertain, but is believed
Traffic Control to be based on the 1940 AASHTO policy on no-
passing zones. This policy represents a
Devices for Canada
subjective compromise between distances
(marking) computed for flying passes and for delayed
Methodology passes. As such, it does not represent any
37
particular passing situation . Subsequent
4,37
studies have shown the AASHTO values to
Higher of Operating Minimum Passing
be generally conservative for modern drivers and
or Posted Speed Sight Distance (m)
(km/h) (rounded) vehicles, but AASHTO has not reduced its
minimum passing sight distances.
50 160
5
60 200
It has been suggested that required passing
sight distance is successively longer for a
70 240 passenger car passing a passenger car, a
80 275 passenger car passing a truck, a truck passing
a passenger car and a truck passing a truck,
90 330
but that all of these required distances are less
100 400 than those given as “minimums” by AASHTO
110 475 (Table 1.2.5.5). A comparison of these
requirements is shown on Figure 1.2.5.2, which
120 565 reproduces results of modelling research . In
5

Design Controls
presenting these results, the authors inadequate when drivers must make complex
commented that: decisions, when information is difficult to find,
when information is unusual or when unusual
“neither (their) models nor the manoeuvres are required. Limiting the sight
current AASHTO.... models distance to the stopping sight distance may
have any direct demonstrated preclude drivers from performing unusual, evasive
relationship to the safety of manoeuvres. Similarly, stopping sight distance
passing manoeuvres on two- may not provide drivers with enough visibility to
lane road. Such demonstrated allow them to piece together warning signals and
safety relationships are needed then decide on a course of action. Because
before any change in decision sight distance allows drivers to
passing..... criteria can be manoeuvre their vehicles or vary their operating
reasonably contemplated”. speed rather than stop, decision sight distance
is much greater than stopping sight distance for
6
In a review of research findings , it was noted a given design speed.
that collisions involving a passing manoeuvre
amounted to only about 2% of all collisions on Designers should use decision sight distance
two-lane rural roads. However, the proportion of wherever information may be perceived
fatal and incapacitating collisions was found to incorrectly, decisions are required or where
4
be almost 6%. AASHTO findings suggest that control actions are required. Some examples of
significant numbers of drivers may avoid passing where it could be desirable to provide decision
manoeuvres on two-lane roads, particularly where sight distance are:
trucks are involved. However, drivers who refuse
to pass another vehicle, even where adequate • complex interchanges and intersections
sight distance exists, may frustrate other, more
confident drivers, who may then attempt unsafe • locations where unusual or unexpected
passing manoeuvres. manoeuvres occur
To address the general lack of correlated data • locations where significant changes to the
between collision occurrence and passing sight roadway cross section are made
distance, the designer should seek opportunities
to introduce passing lanes (see Chapter 2.1) on • areas where there are multiple demands on
two-lane roads, particularly where the terrain limits the driver’s decision making capabilities
6
sight distance. A report on a review and from: road elements, traffic control devices,
7
evaluation of research studies concluded that advertising, traffic, etc.
passing and climbing lane installations reduce
collision rates by 25% compared to untreated • construction zones
two-lane sections. Such facilities also provide
safer passing opportunities for drivers who are Table 1.2.5.7 shows the range of values for
uncomfortable in using the opposing traffic lane decision sight distance. The decision sight
and for those who are frustrated by them, distance increases with the complexity of the
particularly when few passing opportunities exist evasive action that is taken by the driver and
due to terrain or traffic volume. with the complexity of the surroundings.
1.2.5.4 Decision Sight Distance The values for decision sight distance given in
Table 1.2.5.7 have been developed from empirical
Stopping sight distance allows alert, competent data. When using these sight distances, the
drivers to come to a quick stop under ordinary designer should consider eye and object heights
circumstances. This distance is usually appropriate for specific applications.

Table 1.2.5.7 Decision Sight Distance4
Design Speed Decision Sight Distance for Avoidance Manoeuvre (m)

(km/h)
A B C D E
50 75 160 145 160 200
60 95 205 175 205 235

70 125 250 200 240 275
80 155 300 230 275 315
90 185 360 275 320 360

100 225 415 315 365 405
110 265 455 335 390 435
120+ 305 505 375 415 470
Notes: Avoidance Manoeuvre A: stop on rural roadway.

Avoidance Manoeuvre B: stop on urban roadway.
Avoidance Manoeuvre C: speed/path/direction change on rural roadway.
Avoidance Manoeuvre D: speed/path/direction change on suburban roadway.
Avoidance Manoeuvre E: speed/path/direction change on urban roadway.

Design Controls

REFERENCES 10. Lamm, R., Heger, R. and Eberhard, O. Op-

erating Speed and Relation Design Back-
grounds - Important Issues to be Regarded
1. Hall, J.W. and Turner, D.S. Stopping Sight
in Modern Highway Alignment Design, pre-
Distance: Can We See Where We Now
sented at the IRF World Meeting, Toronto,
Stand? in Transportation Research Record
ON, 1997.
1208, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1989.
11. Alexander, G.J. and Lunenfeld, H., Driver
Expectancy in Highway Design and Traffic
2. Woods, D.L. Sensitivity Analysis of the Fac-
Operations. Report No. FHWA-TO-86-1,
tors Affecting Roadway Vertical Curve De-
Federal Highway Administration, US Depart-
sign. Presented at 68th Annual Meeting of
ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C.,
TRB, January 1989.
1986.
3. Conceptions Routiers: Normes, Ouvrages,
12. Design Vehicle Dimensions for Use in Geo-
Routiers. Quebec Ministere des Transports,
metric Design, by Lea Associates for the
1995.
Transportation Association of Canada, Ot-
4. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways tawa, ON, 1996.
and Streets. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
13. Fitzpatrick, K., Shamburger, B. and Fambro,
2001.
D. Design Speed, Operating Speed and
5. Harwood, D.W. and Glennon, J.C. Passing Posted Speed Survey, presented at Trans-
Sight Distance for Passenger Cars and portation Research Board meeting, Wash-
Trucks, in Transportation Research Record ington, D.C., 1996.
14. Krammes, R.A., Fitzpatrick, K., Blaschke,
J.D. and Fambro, D. Speed - Understand-
6. Sanderson, R.W. The Need for Cost-Effec- ing Design, Operating and Posted Speed.
tive Guidelines to Enhance Truck Safety. Report No. 1465-1, Texas Transportation
Presented to the Transportation Association Institute, 1996.
of Canada Conference, 1996.
15. Garber, N.J. and Gadiraju, R. Factors Af-
7. Passing Manoeuvres and Passing Lanes: fecting Speed Variance and its Influence on
Design, Operational & Safety Evaluations. Accidents, in Transportation Research
ADI Limited for Transport Canada Safety Record 1213, TRB, National Research
Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario, 1989 (unpub- Council, Washington, D.C., 1989.
lished).
16. Gambard, J.M. and Louah, G. Vitesses
8. Harwood, D.W., Mason, J.M., Glauz, W.D., Practiquees et Geometrie de la Route,
Kulakowski, B.T. and Fitzpatrick, K. Truck SETRA, 1986.
Characteristics for Use in Roadway Design
17. Ogden, K.W. Safer Roads - A Guide to Road
and Operation. FHWA-RD-89-226 and 227,
Safety Engineering, Ashgate Publishing Co.,
1990.
Brookfield, VT, 1996.
9. Lamm, R., Choueiri, E.M., Hayward, J.C.
18. Olson, P. Forensic Aspects of Driver Per-
and Paluri, A. Possible Design Procedure
ception and Response. Lawyers & Judges
to Promote Design Consistency in Highway
Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson, AZ,
Geometric Design on Two-Lane Rural
1996.
Roads, in Transportation Research Record
December 2011 Page 1.2.R.1

Design Controls
19. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 27. Managing Speed: Review of Current Prac-
209. Transportation Research Board, Na- tice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits.
tional Research Council, Washington, DC, Special Report 254, TRB, National Research
1994. Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
20. Krammes, R.A., Brackett, R.Q., Shafer, 28. Canadian Guide to 3R/4R. Transportation
M.A., Ottesen, J.L., Anderson, I.B., Fink, Association of Canada, Ottawa, 2001.
K.L., Collins, K.M., Pendleton, O.J.,
Messer, C.J. Horizontal Alignment Design 29. Highway Safety Design and Operations
Consistency for Rural Two Lane Highways, Guide. ASSHTO, Washington, D.C., 1997.
FHWA-RD-94-034, 1993.
30. Context Sensitive Highway Design. ASCE,
21. Prisk, C.W. Passing Practices on Rural High- 1999.
ways. Proceedings of the Highway Re-
search Board, Vol. 21, 1941, in A Policy on 31. Thinking Beyond the Pavement. AASHTO,
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 1998.
AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1994.
32. Flexibility in Highway Design. Federal High-
22. Shelbume, T.E. and Sheppe, R.L. Skid Re- way Administration. Washington, D.C.,
sistance Measurements of Virginia Pave- 1997.
ments. Research Report No. 5-B. Highway
Research Board, April 1948, in a Policy on 33. Kassoff, H., Contextual Highway Design:
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Time to be Mainstreamed. ITE Journal, De-
AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1994. cember 2001.
23. Moyer, R.A. and Shupe, J.W. Roughnesss 34. Beyond the Green Book. Transportation
and Skid Resistance Measurements of Research Board. Washington, D.C., 1987.
Pavements in California. Bulletin 37. High-
way Research Board, August 1951, in a 35. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways for Canada. Transportation Association of
and Streets. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., Canada. February 2008.
1994.
36. Passing Sight Distance Design and Mark-
24. Safety, Speed and Speed Management: A ing Study. Project No. T8080-04-0338. Intus
Canadian Review. IBI Group for Transport Road Safety Engineering Inc. for Transport
Canada, 1997. Canada, 2006.
25. Parker, M.R. Effects of Raising and Lower- 37. National Cooperative Highway Program Re-
ing Speed Limits on Selected Roadway port 605, “Passing Sight Distance Criteria”,
Sections. FHWA-RD-92-084, Washington, Transportation Research Board, Washing-
D.C, 1997. ton, D.C., 2008.
26. Synthesis of Safety Research Related to

Speed and Speed Management. FHWARD-
98-154, Washington, D.C., 1998.
Page 1.2.R.2 December 2011

2.1 ALIGNMENT AND LANE CONFIGURATION

2.1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 2.1.1.1
2.1.2 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ....................................................................... 2.1.2.1

2.1.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................ 2.1.2.1
2.1.2.2 Circular Curves .............................................................................. 2.1.2.2
2.1.2.3 Spiral Curves ............................................................................... 2.1.2.20
2.1.2.4 Development of Superelevation ................................................... 2.1.2.25
2.1.2.5 Lane Widening on Curves ........................................................... 2.1.2.29
2.1.2.6 Horizontal Alignment: Design Domain
Additional Application Heuristics .................................................. 2.1.2.36
2.1.2.7 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ........................................................ 2.1.2.44
2.1.3 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ............................................................................. 2.1.3.1

2.1.3.1 Overview ........................................................................................ 2.1.3.1
2.1.3.2 Grades ........................................................................................... 2.1.3.1
2.1.3.3 Vertical Curves .............................................................................. 2.1.3.4
2.1.3.4 Sight Distance at Underpasses ..................................................... 2.1.3.9
2.1.3.5 Vertical Alignment: Design Domain
Additional Application Heuristics .................................................. 2.1.3.10
2.1.3.6 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ......................................................... 2.1.3.14
2.1.4 COORDINATION AND AESTHETICS ........................................................ 2.1.4.1

2.1.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 2.1.4.1
2.1.4.2 Alignment Coordination: Technical Foundation .............................. 2.1.4.1
2.1.4.3 Alignment Coordination: Design Domain
Application Heuristics .................................................................... 2.1.4.2
2.1.4.4 Alignment Coordination: Best Practices ........................................ 2.1.4.3
2.1.5 CROSS-SLOPE ........................................................................................... 2.1.5.1

2.1.5.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 2.1.5.1
2.1.5.2 Cross-Slopes and Traffic Operations:
2.1.5.3 Cross-Slopes and Drainage .......................................................... 2.1.5.2
2.1.5.4 Cross-Slope Arrangements:
2.1.5.5 Cross-Slope Changes: Application Heuristics ............................... 2.1.5.6
2.1.6 BASIC LANES AND LANE BALANCE ........................................................ 2.1.6.1

2.1.6.1 Basic Lanes ................................................................................... 2.1.6.1
2.1.6.2 Lane Balance ................................................................................. 2.1.6.2

Alignment and Lane Configuration
2.1.6.3 Coordination of Lane Balance and Basic Lanes ............................ 2.1.6.2

2.1.6.4 Express Collector Systems: Best Practices ................................. 2.1.6.5
2.1.7 LANE AND ROUTE CONTINUITY AND WEAVING ................................... 2.1.7.1

2.1.7.1 Lane Continuity .............................................................................. 2.1.7.1
2.1.7.2 Route Continuity ............................................................................ 2.1.7.1
2.1.7.3 Weaving ......................................................................................... 2.1.7.4
2.1.8 TRUCK CLIMBING LANES ........................................................................ 2.1.8.1

2.1.8.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 2.1.8.1
2.1.8.2 Grades and Operations: Technical Foundation .............................. 2.1.8.1
2.1.8.3 Best Practices: Warrants .............................................................. 2.1.8.3
2.1.8.4 Application Heuristics .................................................................... 2.1.8.8
2.1.8.5 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ........................................................... 2.1.8.9
2.1.9 PASSING LANES ........................................................................................ 2.1.9.1

2.1.9.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 2.1.9.1
2.1.9.2 Technical Foundation ..................................................................... 2.1.9.1
2.1.9.3 Best Practices: Warrants .............................................................. 2.1.9.2
2.1.9.4 Application Heuristics .................................................................... 2.1.9.3
2.1.10 TRUCK ESCAPE RAMPS ........................................................................ 2.1.10.1

2.1.10.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 2.1.10.1
2.1.10.2 Best Practices: Warrants ............................................................ 2.1.10.3
2.1.10.3 Types: Best Practices ................................................................. 2.1.10.4
2.1.10.4 Location: Best Practices.............................................................. 2.1.10.5
2.1.10.5 Application Heuristics .................................................................. 2.1.10.6
2.1.10.6 Details of Bed: Design Elements ................................................. 2.1.10.7
2.1.10.7 Signing, Delineation, Illumination, Maintenance ........................... 2.1.10.9
2.1.10.8 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ......................................................... 2.1.10.9
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 2.1.R.1
Page 2.1.ii September 1999

Tables
Table 2.1.2.1 Maximum Lateral Friction for Rural
and High Speed Urban Design ...................................................... 2.1.2.7
Table 2.1.2.2 Maximum Lateral Friction for Low Speed Urban Design ............... 2.1.2.7
Table 2.1.2.3 Minimum Radii for Limiting Values of e and f
for Rural and High Speed Urban Roadways ................................. 2.1.2.8
Table 2.1.2.4 Minimum Radii For Urban Designs ................................................ 2.1.2.9
Table 2.1.2.5 Superelevation and Minimum Spiral Parameters,
emax = 0.04 m/m ............................................................................ 2.1.2.12
emax = 0.06 m/m ............................................................................ 2.1.2.13
emax = 0.08 m/m ............................................................................ 2.1.2.14
Table 2.1.2.8 Superelevation Rate for Urban Design, emax = 0.04 m/m ............. 2.1.2.18
Table 2.1.2.9 Superelevation Rate for Urban Design, emax = 0.06 m/m ............. 2.1.2.19
Table 2.1.2.10 Calculated Stopping Sight Distance on
Minimum Radius Curves ............................................................. 2.1.2.20
Table 2.1.2.11 Maximum Relative Slope Between Outer Edge
of Pavement and Centreline of Two-Lane Roadways ................. 2.1.2.23
Table 2.1.2.12 Length of Superelevation Runoff for Two-Lane
Crowned Urban Roadways .......................................................... 2.1.2.26
Table 2.1.2.13 Length of Superelevation Runoff for Four-Lane, Undivided
Crowned Urban Roadways, or Two-Lane Urban Roadways
Without Crown ............................................................................. 2.1.2.26
Table 2.1.2.14 Pavement Widening Values on Curves
for Heavy SU Truck ..................................................................... 2.1.2.33
Table 2.1.2.15 Pavement Widening Values on Curves for WB-20 ...................... 2.1.2.33
Table 2.1.2.16 Pavement Widening Values on Curves for B-Train ..................... 2.1.2.34
Table 2.1.2.17 Required Lateral Clearance on Minimum Radius Curves ........... 2.1.2.43
Table 2.1.3.1 Maximum Gradients ...................................................................... 2.1.3.2
Table 2.1.3.2 K Factors to Provide Stopping Sight Distance
on Crest Vertical Curves ................................................................ 2.1.3.6
Table 2.1.3.3 K Factors to Provide Passing Sight Distance on
Crest Vertical Curves ..................................................................... 2.1.3.7
Table 2.1.3.4 K Factors to Provide Minimum Stopping Sight Distance
on Sag Vertical Curves .................................................................. 2.1.3.9
Table 2.1.5.1 Pavement Cross-Slope for Resurfacing ........................................ 2.1.5.5
Table 2.1.5.2 Maximum Relative Slope Between Outer Edge
of Pavement and Centreline of Two-Lane Roadway ..................... 2.1.5.6
Table 2.1.5.3 Design Values for Rate of Change of Cross-Slope
for Single-Lane Turning Roads ...................................................... 2.1.5.6
Table 2.1.8.1 Lengths of Grade for 15 km/h Speed Reduction ........................... 2.1.8.7
Table 2.1.9.1 Typical Passing Lane Spacing ....................................................... 2.1.9.4
Table 2.1.10.1 Values for Rolling Resistance ...................................................... 2.1.10.2
September 1999 Page 2.1.iii

Figures
Figure 2.1.2.1 Dynamics of Vehicle on Circular Curve ......................................... 2.1.2.3
Figure 2.1.2.2 Overturning Moment on Circular Curve ......................................... 2.1.2.5
Figure 2.1.2.3 Distribution of Superelevation and Lateral Friction ....................... 2.1.2.10
Figure 2.1.2.4 Relationship of Speed, Radius and Superelevation
for Low Speed (<70 km/h) Urban Design .................................... 2.1.2.15
Figure 2.1.2.5 Alternative Method for Distribution of Superelevation
and Lateral Friction ...................................................................... 2.1.2.16
Figure 2.1.2.6 Friction Forces in Braking on Horizontal Curves ......................... 2.1.2.17
Figure 2.1.2.7 Basis for Spiral Parameter Design Values ................................... 2.1.2.22
Figure 2.1.2.8 Three Methods of Superelevation Development on
Two-Lane Crowned Roadways .................................................... 2.1.2.28
Figure 2.1.2.9 Three Methods of Superelevation Development on
Divided Roadways ....................................................................... 2.1.2.30
Figure 2.1.2.10 Relationship of Off-Tracking Components
and Associated Formulae ............................................................ 2.1.2.32
Figure 2.1.2.11 Lateral Clearance for Range of Upper Values of
Stopping Sight Distance .............................................................. 2.1.2.40
Figure 2.1.2.12 Lateral Clearance for Range of Lower Values of
Stopping Sight Distance .............................................................. 2.1.2.41
Figure 2.1.2.13 Lateral Clearance for Passing Sight Distance ............................. 2.1.2.42
Figure 2.1.3.1 Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curve ......................................... 2.1.3.5
Figure 2.1.3.2 Stopping Sight Distance on Sag Vertical Curve ............................ 2.1.3.8
Figure 2.1.3.3 Sight Distance at Underpass ......................................................... 2.1.3.9
Figure 2.1.3.4 Airway Clearance ......................................................................... 2.1.3.15
Figure 2.1.4.1 Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination
and Aesthetics ............................................................................... 2.1.4.4
and Aesthetics ............................................................................... 2.1.4.5
and Aesthetics ............................................................................... 2.1.4.6
and Aesthetics ............................................................................... 2.1.4.7
and Aesthetics ............................................................................... 2.1.4.8
and Aesthetics ............................................................................... 2.1.4.9
and Aesthetics ............................................................................. 2.1.4.10
and Aesthetics ............................................................................. 2.1.4.11
and Aesthetics ............................................................................. 2.1.4.12
and Aesthetics ............................................................................. 2.1.4.13
Page 2.1.iv December 2011


and Aesthetics ............................................................................. 2.1.4.14
and Aesthetics ............................................................................. 2.1.4.15
Figure 2.1.5.1 False Grading and Cross-Slopes .................................................. 2.1.5.3
Figure 2.1.5.2 Application of Cross-Slope on Various Types of Roads ................ 2.1.5.4
Figure 2.1.5.3 Maximum Algebraic Difference in Pavement
Cross-Slope of Adjacent Traffic Lanes .......................................... 2.1.5.7
Figure 2.1.6.1 Schematic of Basic Number of Lanes ........................................... 2.1.6.1
Figure 2.1.6.2 Typical Examples of Lane Balance................................................ 2.1.6.3
Figure 2.1.6.3 Coordination of Lane Balance and Basic Lanes ........................... 2.1.6.4
Figure 2.1.6.4 Typical Express Collector System ................................................. 2.1.6.6
Figure 2.1.7.1 Illustration of Route Continuity ....................................................... 2.1.7.2
Figure 2.1.7.2 Examples of Lane Continuity ......................................................... 2.1.7.3
Figure 2.1.7.3 Types of Weaving Sections ........................................................... 2.1.7.5
Figure 2.1.7.4 Solutions for Undesirable Weaving ................................................ 2.1.7.6
Figure 2.1.7.5 Method of Measuring Weaving Lengths ......................................... 2.1.7.7
Figure 2.1.8.1 Collision Involvement Rate for Trucks ............................................ 2.1.8.2
Figure 2.1.8.2 Performance Curves For Heavy Trucks, 120 g/W,
Decelerations & Accelerations ....................................................... 2.1.8.4
Figure 2.1.8.3 Performance Curves for Heavy Trucks, 180 g/W,
Figure 2.1.8.4 Performance Curves for Heavy Trucks, 200 g/W,
Figure 2.1.8.5 Climbing Lanes Overlapping on Crest Curve .............................. 2.1.8.10
Figure 2.1.8.6 Climbing Lane Design Example .................................................. 2.1.8.11
Figure 2.1.9.1 Typical Passing Lane Layout ......................................................... 2.1.9.2
Figure 2.1.9.2 Typical Traffic Simulation Output of Percent
Following and Correlation with Level of Service ............................ 2.1.9.4
Figure 2.1.9.3 Alternative Configurations for Passing Lanes ............................... 2.1.9.5
Figure 2.1.10.1 Forces Acting on Vehicle in Motion .............................................. 2.1.10.2
Figure 2.1.10.2 Basic Types of Designs of Truck Escape Ramps ........................ 2.1.10.4
Figure 2.1.10.3 Typical Layout of Truck Escape Ramp ........................................ 2.1.10.8
Figure 2.1.10.4 Typical Cross Section of Truck Escape Ramp ............................ 2.1.10.8
December 2011 Page 2.1.v

Page 2.1.vi September 1999

Figure 2.1.2.1 Dynamics of Vehicle on Circular Curve1
f = the lateral friction force factor • frequency of slow-moving vehicles

between the vehicle tire and
the roadway pavement. Note • maintenance
that this friction is lateral or
side friction and is different Normal maximum values used in Canada are
from the longitudinal friction 0.04 m/m, 0.06 m/m and 0.08 m/m depending
factor used to determine on environment and the degree of surface icing
stopping distance that is likely to occur. In rural areas, higher
values of maximum superelevation may be
V = speed of vehicle (km/h) used in more favourable conditions, whereas
in areas where surface icing occurs, lower
R = radius of curve (m) values should be applied.
In a condition where f = 0, the entire resistance Rural Areas: Design Domain

to centrifugal force is provided by Quantitative Aids
superelevation. This might occur on a large
radius curve with slow moving vehicles under In rural areas a maximum superelevation rate
icy conditions. If e, V and R are such that the of 0.06 m/m appears to be gaining more
pavement and tires cannot supply enough acceptance than a maximum superelevation of
lateral friction, the vehicle will lose stability and 0.08 m/m because:
start to skid.
1. Adoption of the 0.06 m/m maximum results
Maximum Superelevation: Design Domain in better horizontal alignment in cases
where minimum radii are used. Use of the
Overview minimum radii based on 0.08 m/m
maximum superelevation can result in
The maximum rate of superelevation that can sharp curves not consistent with driver
be applied in road design is controlled by a expectations in a rural environment. Use
number of factors: of isolated sharp curves in a generally
smooth rural alignment is not
• climatic conditions (frequency of snow and recommended.
icing)
2. Use of the 0.06 m/m maximum
• terrain (flat, rolling, or mountainous) superelevation table is expected to improve
operational characteristics for vehicles
• type of environment (rural or urban)
travelling at lower speeds during adverse

weather conditions, or for other reasons, Urban Areas: Design Domain

while not adversely affecting higher speed Application Heuristics
vehicles. This is especially important for
roads located where winter conditions 1. In urban areas maximum superelevation
prevail several months of the year. values tend to be lower since vehicles
travelling at slow speeds or moving away
3. The minimum horizontal radius should be from a stopped position might experience
compensated on steep downgrades to side-slip on higher superelevation.
enhance road safety. On steep downgrades Maximum superelevation in urban areas is
the minimum curve radius should be typically 0.06 m/m.
increased by 10% for each 1% increase in
grade over 3%. 2. A maximum superelevation rate of
0.04 m/m may also be used for an urban
R (min on grade)* = R (min) (1+ (G-3)/10) roadway system, and is appropriate where
surface icing and interrupted flow is
Where: expected.
R (min) = values in Tables 2.1.2.5, 3. The maximum superelevation rates of
2.1.2.6, 2.1.2.7
0.04 m/m and 0.06 m/m are generally
G = grade (%) applicable for design of new roads in the
upper range of the classification system and
R = radius (m) where little or no physical constraints exist.
Example: Design Speed = 100 km/h; 4. Superelevation is generally not applied on

e=0.06; G=6% local roads.
e = pavement superelevation (m/m) 5. On collector roads superelevation is used

occasionally, and typically where beneficial
R (min) = 440 m (Table 2.1.2.6) in matching adjacent topography. Maximum
superelevation rates in these cases are in
R (min)* = 440(1+(6-3)/10) = 572 m or
the range of 0.02 m/m (reverse crown) to
570 m (rounded for design)
0.04 m/m.
Urban Areas: Design Domain
6. In some jurisdictions, higher superelevation
Quantitative Aids
values are used for ramps on urban
In urban areas maximum superelevation values freeways than on other urban roads to
cover the range from 0.02 m/m to 0.08 m/m. provide additional safety since freeway
Values commonly used for maximum ramps, particularly off-ramps, tend to be
superelevation are: over-driven more often and side-slip is less
likely to occur since maintenance is better
1. Locals - generally normal crown. at these locations.
2. Collectors - used occasionally with 7. Superelevation rates in excess of

maximum rates of 0.02 m/m or 0.04 m/m. 0.04 m/m are not recommended where
curved alignments pass through existing or
3. Minor arterials - 0.04 m/m to 0.06 m/m. possible future intersection areas. In urban
retrofit situations, it is often difficult or
4. Major arterials - 0.06 m/m. undesirable to provide any superelevation at
all due to physical constraints. In these
5. Expressways and freeways - 0.06 m/m to cases, the designer has to carefully assess
0.08 m/m. the relationships of design speed, curvature,
crossfall and lateral friction in choosing the
6. Interchange ramps - 0.06 m/m to 0.08 m/m. optimum design solution.

8. Acceptable maximum superelevation rates The friction factor at which skidding is imminent
are often established as a matter of policy depends on a number of factors, among which
and vary between jurisdictions based on the most important are the speed of the vehicle,
local conditions. As an example, some the type and condition of the roadway surface,
jurisdictions use a maximum super-elevation and the type and condition of the tires. Different
rate of 0.08 m/m for higher classification observers have recorded different maximum rates
roads such as expressways. In the interests at the same speeds for similar composition
of maintaining consistency in design in any pavements, and logically so, because of the
particular area where the responsibility for inherent differences in pavement texture, weather
roads is divided between jurisdictions, it is conditions and tire condition. Wet or icy
desirable to maintain consistent maximum pavements will provide less friction than dry ones
superelevation. In selecting maximum and the presence of oil, mud, tire rubber and grit
superelevation, therefore, reference should will also reduce friction. General studies2 show
be made to values used by other road that the maximum lateral friction factors
authorities in the area. developed between new tires and wet concrete
pavements range from about 0.5 at 30 km/h to
Lateral Friction: Technical Foundation Element approximately 0.35 at 100 km/h. For normal wet
concrete pavement and smooth tires the value
The lateral friction factor f is the ratio of the lateral is about 0.35 at 70 km/h. In all cases the studies
friction force and the component of the weight of show a decrease in friction values for an increase
the vehicle perpendicular to the pavement. This in speed.
force is applied to the vehicle at the tires and is
Curves are not designed on the basis of the
toward the centre of the curve producing radial
maximum available lateral friction factor. The
acceleration. Figure 2.1.2.1 illustrates lateral
proportion of the lateral friction factor that is used
friction.
with comfort and safety by the vast majority of
The upper limit of the friction factor is that at drivers is the maximum value for design. Values
which skidding is about to occur. Because that relate to pavements that are glazed,
roadway curves are designed to avoid skidding bleeding, or otherwise lacking in reasonable
conditions with a margin of safety, the lateral skid-resistant properties should not control
friction factors for design should be substantially design, because these conditions are avoidable
less than the coefficient of friction of impending and geometric design is based on acceptable
skid. This is because on a given curve some surface conditions attainable at reasonable cost.
vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of design
The centripetal force acting toward the centre of
speed can be expected and some vehicles
the circle at the roadway surface generates an
changing lanes and overtaking will be following
equal centrifugal force acting on the vehicle at
a path of smaller radius than the control line.
1
Figure 2.1.2.2 Overturning Moment on Circular Curve

the centre of gravity outwards from the centre of From other tests2, a maximum lateral friction
the circle, illustrated in Figure 2.1.2.2. These factor of 0.16 for speeds up to 100 km/h was
two equal and opposite forces produce a moment recommended. For higher speeds this factor was
which tends to overturn the vehicle. to be reduced on an incremental basis. Speed
studies2 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike led to a
In selecting maximum allowable lateral friction conclusion that the side friction factor should
factors for design, one criterion is the point at not exceed 0.10 for design speeds of 110 km/h
which the overturning is sufficient to cause the and higher.
driver to experience a feeling of discomfort and
35
cause him to react instinctively to avoid higher Recent research suggests that the above-noted
speed. This happens at higher speeds when the ball-bank readings should be increased to reflect
centripetal force required to maintain the vehicle current vehicle dynamics and improvements in
o
on the curve is supplied largely by lateral friction tire technology. Ball-bank readings of 20 for
o
rather than superelevation and the driver speeds below 50 km/h, 16 for speeds of 50 to
o
experiences discomfort. The speed on a curve, 65 km/h and 12 for speeds over 65 km/h would
at which discomfort due to the overturning better reflect average curve speeds. It should be
moment is evident to the driver, can be accepted recognized that other factors affect and act to
as a design control for the maximum allowable control driver speed at conditions of high friction
amount of side friction. At lower, non-uniform demand. Swerving becomes perceptible, drift
running speeds, which are typical in urban areas, angle increases, and increased steering effort
drivers are more tolerant of discomfort, thus is required to avoid involuntary lane line violation.
allowing an increased amount of lateral friction Under these conditions the cone of vision
for use in design of horizontal curves. narrows and is accompanied by an increasing
sense of concentration and intensity considered
The ball-bank indicator has in the past been undesirable by most drivers. These factors are
widely used by research groups, local agencies more apparent to a driver under open road
and highway departments as a uniform measure conditions.
for the point of discomfort to set safe speeds on
curves. It consists of a steel ball in a sealed Where practical, the maximum friction factor
glass tube. The ball is free to roll except for the values selected should be conservative for dry
damping effect of the liquid in the tube. Its pavements and provide a margin of safety for
simplicity of construction and operation has led operating on pavements that are wet. The need
to widespread acceptance as a guide for for providing skid-resistant pavement surfacing
determination of safe speeds. With such a device for these conditions cannot be over-emphasized
mounted in a vehicle in motion, the ball-bank because superimposed on the frictional
reading at any time is indicative of the combined demands dictated by roadway geometry are
effect of the body roll angle, the centrifugal force those often made by driving manoeuvres such
angle, and the superelevation angle. as braking, sudden lane changes, and minor
changes in direction within the lane. In these
The centrifugal force developed as a vehicle short term manoeuvres the discomfort threshold
travels at uniform speed on a curve causes the is not penetrated immediately and,
ball to roll out to a fixed angle position. A consequently, high friction demand can exist but
correction must be made for that portion of the not be perceived in time for compensation by a
force taken up in the small body roll angle. comfortable speed reduction.
In a series of tests36 it was concluded that safe Lateral Friction: Design Domain
speeds on curves were indicated by ball-bank Quantitative Aids1
readings of 14o for speeds of 30 km/h or less,
12o for speeds of 40 km/h to 50 km/h and 10o Lateral friction values adopted for rural and high
for speeds of 55 km/h to 80 km/h. These ball- speed urban design are given in Table 2.1.2.1.
bank readings are indicative of lateral friction
factors of 0.21, 0.18 and 0.15 respectively, for It is generally recognized that on low speed (30
the test body roll angles and provide ample margin to 60 km/h) urban roads, drivers have developed
of safety against skidding. a higher threshold of discomfort through

Table 2.1.2.1 Maximum Lateral can be developed between the pavement and
Friction for Rural vehicle tires. This relationship is expressed by:
and High Speed
1
Urban Design V2
R min = (2.1.2)
127(e max + fmax )
Design Speed Maximum Lateral Friction
(km/h) for Rural and High Speed
Urban Design
For rural and urban high speed superelevation
40 0.17 applications there is generally reasonable
50 0.16 opportunity to provide the desirable amount of
60 0.15
superelevation. In rural areas the constraints are
70 0.15
usually minimal, while on high speed urban
80 0.14
roadways the designer has reasonable flexibility
90 0.13
100 0.12 in establishing suitable superelevation. This is
110 0.10 because in the design of new streets, particularly
120 0.09 those with design speeds of 70 km/h or more
130 0.08 and through generally undeveloped areas, the
designer typically has greater flexibility in
establishing suitable horizontal and vertical
conditioning, and are willing to accept more
alignments and associated superelevation rates.
lateral friction than in rural or high speed (>
Often it is possible to regrade adjacent properties
70 km/h) urban conditions. The centripetal force
to match superelevated sections, ensuring
producing radial acceleration is supplied largely
appropriate drainage patterns and intersection
by lateral friction and the values adopted for
design of low speed urban streets are higher profiles.
than those for rural and high speed urban
conditions. They are based on a tolerable degree Rural and High Speed Urban Applications:
of discomfort and provide a reasonable margin Design Domain Quantitative Aids
of safety against skidding under normal driving
conditions in the urban environments. Values For rural and high speed urban applications the
are presented in Table 2.1.2.2. minimum radius is calculated using a maximum
superelevation rate of either 0.04 m/m, 0.06 m/
Minimum Radius: Design Domain m or 0.08 m/m for a range of design speeds
from 40 km/h to 130 km/h, and lateral friction
Overview factors from Table 2.1.2.1. These calculated
values are shown in Table 2.1.2.3.
The minimum allowable radius for any design
speed depends on the maximum rate of Low Speed Urban Applications: Design
superelevation and the lateral friction force that Domain Quantitative Aids
For low speed urban conditions and where a

Table 2.1.2.2 Maximum Lateral street is to be upgraded through a developed
Friction for Low urban area, it is often not desirable or possible
Speed Urban to utilize superelevation rates typical of high
1
Design speed design as previously discussed. Design
considerations other than driver discomfort may
Design Speed Maximum Lateral be important. Existing physical controls, right-
(km/h) Friction for Low Speed of-way constraints, intersections, driveways, on-
Urban Design
street parking, and economic considerations
30 0.31 have a strong influence on design elements,
40 0.25
including design speed and superelevation. In
50 0.21
some cases, design speed may not be an initial
60 0.18
design control, but rather a result of the other

Table 2.1.2.3 Minimum Radii for Limiting Values of e and f for Rural and
High Speed Urban Roadways1
Design emax Design Minimum Minimum
Speed (m/m) Value e+f Radius (m) Radius for
(km/h) for f (calculated) Design (m)
40 0.04 0.17 0.21 60 60
50 0.04 0.16 0.20 98 100
60 0.04 0.15 0.19 149 150
70 0.04 0.15 0.19 203 200
80 0.04 0.14 0.18 280 280
90 0.04 0.13 0.17 375 380
100 0.04 0.12 0.16 492 490
40 0.06 0.17 0.23 55 55
50 0.06 0.16 0.22 89 90
60 0.06 0.15 0.21 135 130
70 0.06 0.15 0.21 184 190
80 0.06 0.14 0.20 252 250
90 0.06 0.13 0.19 336 340
100 0.06 0.12 0.18 437 440
110 0.06 0.10 0.16 595 600
120 0.06 0.09 0.15 756 750
130 0.06 0.08 0.14 951 950
40 0.08 0.17 0.25 50 50
50 0.08 0.16 0.24 82 80
60 0.08 0.15 0.23 123 120
70 0.08 0.15 0.23 168 170
80 0.08 0.14 0.22 229 230
90 0.08 0.13 0.21 304 300
100 0.08 0.12 0.20 394 390
110 0.08 0.10 0.18 529 530
120 0.08 0.09 0.17 667 670
130 0.08 0.08 0.16 832 830
controls or considerations influencing the 30 km/h to 60 km/h, normally representative of

horizontal alignment and superelevation. retrofit conditions. Minimum radii are stated for
normal crown (-0.02 m/m, or adverse
Moreover, in low speed urban conditions, drivers superelevation), reverse crown (0.02 m/m
are accustomed to a greater level of discomfort superelevation) and maximum superelevation
while traversing curves. Hence, increased lateral rates of 0.04 and 0.06 m/m. Table 2.1.2.4 also
friction factors resulting from lower superelevation provides a summary of the minimum radii for a
rates or no superelevation at all, are permissible. range of high design speeds, 70 km/h to 100 km/
In these cases, the maximum lateral friction h, associated with maximum superelevation
factors as defined by Table 2.1.2.2 are used in values of 0.04 m/m and 0.06 m/m. The values
calculating minimum radii. are the same as the high speed urban values in
Table 2.1.2.3.
To allow for the fact that in low speed urban
designs various limits for maximum permissible Distribution of “e” and “f” Over a Range of
superelevation may exist, the minimum radius Curves: Design Domain
is provided for a number of commonly used rates
of superelevation. Overview
Table 2.1.2.4 provides rounded design values for There are a number of methods of distributing e
minimum radii for low speed urban design, and f over a range of curves flatter than the

9
Table 2.1.2.4 Minimum Radii for Urban Designs
Minimum Radius (m)
Design Crown Section Superelevated Section
Speed Reverse3,4
4 Maximum Rate
(km/h) Normal (+0.02 m/m)
(-0.02 m/m) emax emax
+0.04 (m/m) +0.06 (m/m)
+0.04 +0.06
30 420 30 40 20 20
Low 40 660 65 80 45 40
1
Speed 50 950 115 135 80 75
60 1290 185 220 130 120
70 1680 290 330 200 190
High 80 2130 400 450 280 250
2
Speed 90 2620 530 600 380 340
100 3180 690 770 490 440
Notes: 1. Values for design speeds 30 to 60 km/h based on low speed design and
maximum lateral friction coefficients in Table 2.1.2.2.
2. Values for design speeds 70 to 100 km/h based on high speed design and
maximum lateral friction coefficients in Table 2.1.2.1.
3. Lateral friction coefficients distributed proportional to the inverse of radius,
resulting in different minimum radius values at reverse crown for emax +0.04
and emax +0.06. The methodology of distributing "e" and "f" is described in
more detail in the following section.
4. To determine the minimum radius for normal and reverse crown, the (e+f)
value must be obtained from the alternative method as discussed under
Urban Roadways: Design Domain Quantitative Aids and illustrated in
Figure 2.1.2.5.
minimum radius for a given design speed. The in which for a given design speed, V is constant.
various methods are well documented in For example, in Figure 2.1.2.3, for V = 50 km/h
2
AASHTO . The choice of methods are the result the expression becomes:
of the latitude available to the designer in the
distribution of superelevation (e) and lateral 19.69
e+f = (2.1.4)
friction (f). R
Rural & High Speed Urban Applications: The distribution of e and f described above
Design Domain Technical Foundation favours the overdriving characteristics that
occur on flat to intermediate curves. Overdriving
For rural and high speed urban roadways the on such curves is ameliorated because
method used for distributing e and f is referred superelevation provides nearly all centripetal
2
to as “Method 5” in the AASHTO publication. force required if the vehicle is travelling at
The form of distribution is based on the average running speed and considerable lateral
relationship shown in solid in Figure 2.1.2.3. As friction is available for higher speeds. The
the radius decreases from 450 m to 80 m, the distribution shown in Figure 2.1.2.3 represents
superelevation increases rapidly in the high a practical distribution over the range of radii.
radius vicinity to almost maximum superelevation
in the middle range and less rapidly in the lower An alternative distribution in which
radius vicinity. Conversely the lateral friction
superelevation is not applied in the higher radius
factor increases slowly in the higher radius range
range is shown with a dashed line in
and more rapidly in the smaller radius range.
Figure 2.1.2.3. Superelevation of 0.02 m/m is
This reflects the relationship:
maintained until all available lateral friction is
V2
e+f = (2.1.3)
127R

1
Figure 2.1.2.3 Distribution of Superelevation and Lateral Friction

Figure 2.1.2.4 Relationship of Speed, Radius and Superelevation

1
for Low Speed (<70 km/h) Urban Design
Note: Lateral friction factors are maximum values for low speed (<70 km/h)
urban design.

Figure 2.1.2.5 Alternative Method for Distribution of Superelevation

9
and Lateral Friction

Table 2.1.3.4 K Factors to Provide Minimum Stopping Sight Distance

1
on Sag Vertical Curves
Design Assumed Stopping Rate of Sag Vertical Curvature (K)
Speed Operating Sight Headlight Control Comfort Control
Speed Distance Calculated Rounded Calculated Rounded
(km/h) (km/h) (m)
30 30 29.6 3.9 4 2.3 2
40 40 44.4 7.1 7 4.1 4
50 47-50 57.4-62.8 10.2-11.5 11-12 5.6-6.3 5-6
60 55-60 74.3-84.6 14.5-17.1 15-18 7.7-9.1 8-9
70 63-70 99.1-110.8 19.6-24.1 20-25 10.0-12.4 10-12
80 70-80 112.8-139.4 24.6-31.9 25-32 12.4-16.2 12-16
90 77-90 131.2-168.7 29.6-40.1 30-40 15.0-20.5 15-20
100 85-100 157.0-205.0 36.7-50.1 37-50 18.3-25.3 18-25
110 91-110 179.5-246.4 43.0-61.7 43-62 21.0-30.6 21-30
120 98-120 202.9-285.6 49.5-72.7 50-73 24.3-36.4 24-36
130 105-130 227.9-327.9 56.7-85.0 57-85 27.9-42.8 28-43
Values for sag curvature based on the comfort 2.1.3.4 Sight Distance at
criterion are shown in Table 2.1.3.4. Underpasses
These K values for sag curves are useful in urban While not a frequent design problem, the sight
situations such as underpasses where it is often distance at underpasses may be restricted due
necessary for property and access reasons to to the overpass structure or signs hanging below
depart from original ground elevations for as short the bottom of the overpass structure restricting
a distance as possible. Minimum values are the line of sight. The sight distance through a
normally exceeded where feasible, in grade separation should be equal to or greater
consideration of possible power failures and other than the minimum stopping sight distance.
malfunctions to the street lighting systems. Figure 2.1.3.3 illustrates the sight distance from
Designing sag vertical curves along curved an eye height of h1 to an object height of h2 with
roadways for decision sight distance is normally an underpass clearance of C. Case 1 is for a
not feasible due to the inherent flat grades and sight distance greater than the length of the
resultant surface drainage problems. vertical curve (S>L) and Case 2 is for a sight
Figure 2.1.3.3 Sight Distance at Underpass

distance less than the length of the vertical curve 2.1.3.5 Vertical Alignment:
(S<L): Design Domain
Additional Application
Case 1 (S>L)
Heuristics
L = 2S–800*[C-( h1+h2)/2] /A (2.1.29)
Vertical Alignment Principles: Application
Heuristics
Where:
L = length of vertical curve, m; The following principles generally apply to both
rural and urban roads. A differentiation between
S = sight distance, m;
rural and urban is made in several instances
A = algebraic difference in grades, where necessary for clarity.
percent;
C = vertical clearance, m; 1. On rural and high speed urban roads a
smooth grade line with gradual changes,
h1 = height of eye, m;
consistent with the class of road and the
h2 = height of object, m; character of the terrain, is preferable to an
Case 2 (S<L) alignment with numerous breaks and short
2
L = A*S / [800* (C-(h1+h2)/2)] (2.1.30) lengths of grade. On lower speed curbed
urban roadways drainage design often
Where: controls the grade design.
L = length of vertical curve, m;
2. Vertical curves applied to small changes of
S = sight distance, m; gradient require K values significantly
greater than the minimum as shown in
A = algebraic difference in grades, Tables 2.1.3.2 and 2.1.3.4. The minimum
percent; length in metres should desirably not be less
than the design speed in kilometres per hour.
C = vertical clearance, m; For example, if the design speed is 100 km/
h, the vertical curve length is at least 100 m.
h1 = height of eye, m;
3. Vertical alignment, having a series of
h2 = height of object, m; successive relatively sharp crest and sag
curves creating a “roller coaster” or “hidden
Using an eye height of 2.4 m for a truck driver dip” type of profile is not recommended.
and an object height of 0.38 m for the tail lights Hidden dips can be a safety concern,
of a vehicle, the following equations can be particularly at night. Such profiles generally
derived: occur on relatively straight horizontal
alignment where the roadway profile closely
Case 1 (S>L) follows a rolling natural ground line. Such
roadways are unpleasant aesthetically and
L = 2S – [800*(C-1.39)]/A (2.1.31) more difficult to drive. This type of profile is
avoided by the use of horizontal curves or
Case 2 (S<L) by more gradual grades.
2
L = A*S /[800*(C-1.39)] (2.1.32) 4. A broken back grade line (two vertical
curves in the same direction separated by
These formulas are applicable to the typical a short section of tangent grade) is not
situation where the structure is located over the desirable, particularly in sags where a full
centre of the vertical curve. Where it is not, the view of the profile is possible. This effect is
formulas may underestimate the length of the very noticeable on divided roadways with
38
available sight distance. open median sections.

5. Curves of different K values adjacent to each sustained grade that might be only slightly
other (either in the same direction or opposite below the allowable maximum. This is
directions) with no tangent between them particularly applicable to low design speed
are acceptable provided the required sight roads and streets2.
distances are met.
11. To ensure a smooth grade line on high speed
6. An at-grade intersection occurring on a routes a minimum spacing of 300 m between
roadway with moderate to steep grades, vertical points of intersection is desirable.
should desirably have reduced gradient
through the intersection, desirably less than 12. The design of vertical alignment should not
3%. Such a profile change is beneficial for be carried out in isolation but should have
vehicles making turns and stops, and a proper relationship with the horizontal
serves to reduce potential hazards. alignment. This is discussed in
Section 2.1.4.
7. In sections with curbs the minimum
longitudinal grade is 0.5%. Within Drainage: Application Heuristics
superelevated transition areas, it might
sometimes be virtually impossible to 1. Where uncurbed sections are used and
provide this minimum grade. In such cases, drainage is effected by side ditches, there
the longitudinal grade length below 0.5% is no limiting minimum value for gradient or
should be kept as short as possible. limiting upper value for vertical curves.
Additional information on minimum grades
and drainage is provided in Subsection 2. On curbed sections where storm water
2.1.3.2. drains longitudinally in gutters and is
collected by catch basins, vertical alignment
8. A superelevation transition occurring on a is affected by drainage requirements.
vertical curve requires special attention in Minimum gradients are discussed in
order to ensure that the required minimum Subsection 2.1.3.2.
curvature is maintained across the entire
width of pavement. The lane edge profile on 3. The profile of existing or planned stormwater
the opposite side of the roadway from the piping is an important consideration in
control line may have sharper curvature due setting urban roadway grades. Storm sewer
to the change in superelevation rate required pipes typically have minimum depths to
by the superelevation transition. It is, prevent freezing. These requirements are
therefore, necessary to check both edge considered in setting catchbasin elevations.
profiles and to adjust the desired minimum
vertical curvature. 4. Where the storm sewer system is not
sufficiently deep to drain the streets by
9. Undulating grade lines, with substantial gravity flow, lift stations are an alternative.
lengths of down grade, require careful However, lift stations are generally
review of operations. Such profiles permit considered undesirable due to the high
heavy trucks to operate at higher overall costs associated with installation, operation
speeds than is possible when an upgrade and maintenance. Malfunctions at the lift
is not preceded by a down grade. However, station during a rain storm can also have a
this could encourage excessive speed of major detrimental impact on the street
trucks with attendant conflicts with other system and the adjacent developments.
traffic.
5. On flat crest and sag curves, storm water
10. On long grades it may be preferable to place might run sufficiently slowly so as to spread
steepest grade at the bottom and decrease onto the adjacent travelled lane. There is a
the grades near the top of the ascent or to level point at the crest of a vertical curve,
break the sustained grade by short intervals but generally no difficulty with drainage on
of flatter grade instead of a uniform curbed pavements is experienced if the

curve is sharp enough so that the minimum of trees and other obstacles should be
gradient of 0.35% is reached at a point about examined.
15 m from the crest. This corresponds to a
K value of 43. Where a crest K value greater 4. Roads with open terrain on the windward
than 43 is used, additional facilities such side are exposed to drifting snow resulting
as the application of more frequent in possible whiteout conditions and large
catchbasins are required to assure proper snowbanks from snow plowing. An
pavement drainage near the crest of the alternative horizontal alignment which
curve. shelters a road from this exposure is
preferred. Such shelter may be woodlands
6. For sag vertical curves the same criterion or topographical features. Scale model
for crest curves applies, that is, the simulation of drifting snow may be utilized
minimum grade of 0.35% is reached within to relocate the optimum alignment.
15 m of the level point. Sag vertical curves
normally occur in fill sections. In general, Intersections and Driveways: Application
sag curves should be avoided in cut Heuristics
sections since they require unusual and
costly drainage treatments. 1. Intersections are areas of conflict and
potential hazard. Desirably, the grades of
7. False grading the gutter to provide positive the intersecting roads allow drivers to
drainage is a common design technique recognize the necessary manoeuvres to
and is described in more detail in proceed through the intersection with safety
Subsection 2.1.5.3. and with minimum interference between
vehicles. To this end, gradients as low as
8. Long spiral curves on low gradients could practicable are preferable.
produce flat areas with correspondingly
poor drainage, and are to be avoided. 2. Combinations of grade lines that make
vehicle control difficult are to be avoided at
9. Bridges on sag curves are to be avoided intersections. The vertical alignments
where possible, since bridges tend to freeze through intersections should be designed
more readily and storm water tends to in consideration of the stopping and starting
collect on sag curves. actions required and to favour the principal
traffic flows.
Snow: Application Heuristics
3. It is desirable to avoid substantial grade
1. Snow drifting on roadways in areas of heavy changes at intersections, but it is not always
snow accumulation can become a serious feasible. Adequate sight distance is
hazard to traffic. required along both roads and across the
corners.
2. Where the prevailing wind during a snow
fall is lateral, snow will tend to accumulate 4. At all intersections where there are Yield or
in cut sections and other areas of Stop signs, the gradients of the intersecting
depression. In such cases, the effect can roads are made as flat as practicable on
be significantly mitigated by designing the those sections that are to be used as
profile so as to avoid cut sections in favour storage space for stopped vehicles.
of fill. It is desirable to set the profile 0.7 to However, a 1% minimum gradient is
1.0 m above surrounding land. desirable to allow for reduction in cross-
slope without impairing drainage. Flattening
3. Where this is not possible for other reasons, roadway cross-slopes to about 1% is often
the back slopes need to be flattened to 7:1 useful in avoiding abrupt changes in grade
or flatter to avoid drifting, and other features where roadways intersect. This is
of the cross section such as the presence discussed more fully in Chapter 2.3.
Intersections controlled by signals or which

might be at some future date, are generally appropriate vertical alignment conditions for
flat. both the street and the driveway.
5. Many vehicle operators are unable to judge Vertical Clearances: Application Heuristics
the increase or decrease in stopping or
acceleration distance necessary due to Roads
steep grades. Their normal deductions and
reactions thus may be in error at a critical 1. Vertical clearance requirements vary
time. Accordingly, grades in excess of 3% between the Provinces and local
on intersecting roadways are to be avoided, jurisdictions.
where possible.
2. Vertical clearances for local roads and non-
6. The grade and cross sections on the truck routes may be less than that required
intersection legs are adjusted for a distance for the remainder of the road system.
back from the intersection proper to provide
a smooth junction and proper drainage. 3. The minimum vertical clearance, as
Normally the grade of the major road is measured from the roadway surface to the
carried through the intersection and that of underside of the structure is applicable to
the crossing road adjusted to it. This the entire roadway width, including the
requires transition of the crown of the minor shoulders.
road to an inclined cross section at its
junction with the major road. Changes from 4. Minimum vertical clearance for vehicular
one cross-slope to another are gradual. bridges is 5.0 m over travelled lanes and
shoulders.
7. Intersections of a minor road crossing a
multilane divided road with a narrow median 5. When setting the profile for a roadway
and superelevated curve are avoided beneath a bridge structure, designers
whenever possible because of the difficulty should consider increasing the vertical
in adjusting grades to provide a suitable clearance by 100 to 200 mm above the
crossing. Grades of separate turning minimum value to make provision for future
roadways are designed to suit the cross- overlays of the roadway surface.
slopes and grades of the intersection legs.
6. To account for truck trailers with long
8. The vertical alignment of a new street is wheelbases, additional vertical clearance
normally set in consideration of the grades should be considered when minimum sag
of existing or possible future driveways. For vertical curves are used for underpass
local streets, strong consideration is given roadways.
to adjusting the street profile to provide
desirable driveway grades. For the higher 7. On existing roads that are being resurfaced
street classifications, more emphasis is or reconstructed the minimum structure
placed on the design characteristics of the clearance is 4.5 m. Where only the
roadway with less consideration to minimum vertical clearance exists beneath
optimizing driveway grades. The cross- a bridge structure and the roadway requires
slope of a roadway is rarely adjusted to suit resurfacing, the surface is normally milled
the elevations of a driveway, unless the and replaced, rather than overlaid.
driveway handles high traffic volumes, in
which case the cross-slope adjustment Railways
guidelines applicable to intersection areas
may be suitable. 1. Minimum vertical clearance over railways is
6.858 m (22.5 feet) measured from base of
9. In retrofit situations, re-grading of private rail.
properties is often necessary to achieve

2. The minimum vertical clearance where occasionally use the sidewalk, even where
ballast lifts are contemplated is 7.163 m not legally permitted.
(23.5 feet) measured from base of rail
elevation to the underside of the overpass 4. If it can be clearly determined that cyclists
structure. will not use the pedestrian sidewalk,
minimum clearances in accordance with the
3. In all cases, it is good practice to confirm National or Provincial Building Codes could
the specific clearance requirements with be employed.
the pertinent railway company, as well as
with the appropriate Federal and Provincial 5. Further information on sidewalks and
agencies, before designs are finalized. bikeways is provided in Chapters 2.2, 3.3
and 3.4.
Overhead Utilities
Waterways
1. The vertical clearance requirements for
roadways crossing beneath overhead 1. Over non-navigable waterways, bridges
utilities vary with the different agencies. In and open footing culverts, the vertical
the case of overhead power lines, the clearance between the lowest point of the
clearance varies with the voltage of the soffit and the design high water level shall
conductors. The clearance requirements in be sufficient to prevent damage to the
each case should be confirmed with the structure by the action of flow water, ice
controlling agency. flows, ice jams or debris.
Pedestrian Overpasses 2. For navigable waterways, navigational

clearance is dependent on the type of
1. Normally, the minimum vertical clearance vessel using the waterway and should be
for a pedestrian overpass structure is set determined individually.
at 5.3 m or 0.3 m greater than the
clearance of any existing vehicular overpass 3. Clearances should also conform to the
structure along that same route. This requirements of the Navigable Waters
lessens the chances of it being struck by a Protection Act of Canada.
high load - an important consideration - since
a pedestrian overpass, being a relatively light Airways
structure, is generally unable to absorb
severe impact and is more likely to collapse 1. Vertical clearance to airways is as indicated
in such an event. The increased vertical in Figure 2.1.3.4.
clearance reduces the probability of damage
to the structure and improves the level of 2. Lighting poles should be contained within
safety for pedestrians using the structure. the clearance envelope.
Bikeways and Sidewalks 3. The dimensions are for preliminary design.

Specific dimensions should be approved by
1. For bikeways, the minimum vertical the designated Transport Canada
clearance provided is 2.5 m. representative.
2. It is desirable to allow up to 3.6 m of vertical 2.1.3.6 Explicit Evaluation of

clearance in order to provide an enhanced Safety
design and permit access for typical service
vehicles. General
3. Similar vertical clearances are normally Vertical alignment design has a significant impact
provided for sidewalks since cyclists may on safety in areas where vehicles are required

1
Figure 2.1.3.4 Airway Clearance
to frequently stop and start. Excessive grades grade determines the rate at which water drains
in intersection areas and at driveways can from the pavement surface and this too may
contribute significantly to collision frequencies affect safety. The traditional belief was that
during wet or icy conditions. Efforts are normally safety-related design attention should focus on
made to provide as flat a grade as practicable in crest curves and sag curves. It turns out that
these critical areas, while meeting the minimum while the vertical profile is an important
slopes needed for adequate surface drainage. determinant of the future safety of a road, sight
distance at crest or sag curves is not as
Collision Frequency on Vertical Alignment important as it seemed.
The following information on collision frequency At present the quantitative understanding of how
is derived from a 1998 research paper29. grade affects safety is imprecise. All studies
using data from divided roads concluded that
The vertical profile of a road is likely to affect collision frequency increases with gradient on
safety by various mechanisms. First, vehicles down grades. Some studies concluded that the
tend to slow down going up the grade and speed same is true for up grades, while others
up going down the grade. Speed is known to concluded to the contrary. Estimates of the joint
affect collision severity. Thus on the up grade effect of grade on both directions of travel vary.
collisions tend to be less severe than on the It is suggested that the conservative Collision
down grade. Since down grade collisions tend Modification Factor of 1.08 be used for all roads.
to be more severe, a larger proportion of That is, if the gradient of a road section is
collisions tend to get reported. Thus, the severity changed by Δg the collision frequency on that
Δg
and frequency of reporting collisions are affected section changes by a factor of 1.08 . Thus,
by the grade. Second, road grades affect the increasing the gradient from, say, 2.0% to 2.5%,
diversity of speeds. This is thought by some to is expected to increase collision frequency by a
0.5
affect collision frequency. Third, road profile factor of 1.08 = 1.04.
affects the available sight distance and gradient
affects braking distance. All of these factors may Researchers looked for deterioration in safety
affect collision frequency and severity. Finally, on crests of vertical curves and found that for

sight distances longer than about 100 m there needed upon entry into the curve. The literature
is no reason for concern except if an intersection does not contain evidence that when there is a
or a similar features is near the crest where the horizontal curve on a down grade, the collision
sight distance is limited. frequency increases more than what is due to
the sum of the separate down grade and the
Professional literature often hints that there is horizontal curvature effects. There is, however,
an important interaction between grade and an indication that when a right curve follows an
curvature. It is true that down grades cause an up grade, there are unusually many collisions,
increase in collisions because of speed perhaps due to sight distance limitations. There
increases and it is also true that a small radius is also an indication that when a left curve follows
of horizontal curvature is a casual factor in a down grade, unusually many vehicles run off
collisions because of the large speed reduction the road.

REFERENCES 14. Sanderson, R. W. “The Need for Cost

Effective Guidelines to Enhance Truck
Safety”. Proceeding of the 1996 TAC
1. TAC. Geometric Design Guide for
Conference, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Canadian Roads. Ottawa, 1986.
15. Mak Engineering. Design Practise &
2. AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design
Highway Aesthetics, Vancouver, B.C.,
of Roadways and Streets. Washington,
1994.
D.C., 1994.
16. Mak Engineering. Relationship between
3. Ontario. Ministry of Transportation.
Minimum Radius, Maximum Grade and
Roadside Safety Manual. 1993.
Superelevation, Vancouver, B.C., 1995.
4. B.C. Ministry of Transportation. Roadway
17. Australia. Austroads. Guide to the
Engineering Design Manual. 1995.
Geometric Design of Rural Roads, 1989.
5. NCHRP. Truck Escape Ramps,
18. Abdelwahab, W.E. and Morrall J.
Synthesis 178. TRB, Washington, D. C.,
”Determination of the Need for and Location
1992.
of Truck Escape Ramps”. Proceedings of
the 1996 TAC Conference, Charlottetown,
6. Saskatchewan. Department of Roadways
P.E.I.
and Transportation. Roadway Design
Manual. 1998.
19. B.C. Ministry of Transportation and
Highways. Slow Moving Vehicle Pullouts.
7. Alberta Transportation and Utilities. Alberta
Technical Bulletin DS97001., Victoria, B.C.,
Roadway Geometric Design Guide. 1995.
1997.
8. Ontario. Ministry of Transportation.
Geometric Design Standards for Ontario 20. B.C. Ministry of Transportation and
Roadways, 1994. Highways. Climbing Lane Warrants &
Design. Technical Bulletin DS97002.,
9. TAC. Urban Supplement to the Geometric Victoria, B.C., 1997.
Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa,
1995. 21. B.C. Ministry of Transportation and
Highways. Passing Lane Warrants &
10. Zegeer, C.V. et al. Safety Effects of Design. Technical Bulletin DS97003., 1997.
Geometric Improvements on Horizontal
Curves. TRR 1356, TRB, Washington, 22. Morrall J., Miller E. Jr., Smith, G.A.,
D.C., 1992. Feuerstein J., Yazden F. “Planning and
Design of Passing Lanes Using Simulation
11. Eek, R.W., Lang, S.K. Roadway Design Model”. Journal of Transportation
Standards to Accommodate Low Engineering. Vol. 121, No. 1, ASCE,
Clearance Vehicles. TRR 1356, TRB, Reston, VA, 1995.
23. Harwood D.W. Relationship Between
12. Smith and Lam. Coordination of Horizontal Operational and Safety Considerations in
and Vertical Alignment with Regard to Geometric Design Improvements. TRR
Roadway Aesthetics. TRR 1445, TRB, 1512, TRB, Washington, D.C., 1995.
24. Morrall J. “An Inventory of Canadian
13. TRB. Recent Developments in Rural Road Procedures for the Determination of the
Design in Australia. TRR 1055, TRB, Need and Location of Passing Lanes and
Washington, D.C., 1986. their Impact on the Level of Service on Two-
September 1999 Page 2.1.R.1

Lane Highways” . Proceedings of the Third 31. Ontario. Ministry of Transportation and
International Symposium on Highway Communications, Highway Geometrics
Capacity, Road Directorate, Ministry of (Horizontal), SI (Metric). 1974.
Transportation, Denmark, 1998.
32. Harwood, D.W., Hoban, C.J., and Warren,
25. Harwood, D.W. et al. Truck Characteristics D. “Effective Use of Passing Lanes on Two-
for Use in Roadway Design and Operations. Lane Highways”. TRB, Washington, D.C.,
FHWA-RD-89-226 and 227, Washington, 1988.
D.C., 1990.
33. TAC. Metric Curve Tables. Ottawa, 1977.
26. Harwood and St. John. Report No. FHWA-
RD-85/028, Federal Highway 34. TAC. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Administration, Washington, D.C., 1985. Devices for Canada. Ottawa, 1998.
27. Ontario. Ministry of Transportation and 35. Chowdury, M.A., et al. “Evaluation of
Communications. Development of Passing Criteria for Setting Advisory Speeds on
Lane Criteria, 1975. Curves”. TRB, Washington, D.C., 1998.
28. Hauer, E. “Literature Review and Analysis 36. Moyer and Berry [1940]. In AASHTO, A
on Collision Rates on Horizontal Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways
Alignment”, University of Toronto, 1998. and Streets. Washington, D.C., 1994.
29. Hauer, E. “Literature Review and Analysis 37. Glennon, J.C. “An Evaluation of Design
on Collision Rates on Vertical Alignment”. Criteria for Operating Trucks Safely on
University of Toronto, 1998. Grades”. Highway Research Record 312.
Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M
30. Hauer, E. “Literature Review and Analysis University, 1970.
on Collision Rates for Truck Climbing and
Passing Lanes”. University of Toronto, 38. Easa, S.M. Improved Sight Distance Model
1998. for Sag Vertical Curves with Overpasses,
TRB 88th Annual Meeting, January, 2009.

Tables
Table 2.2.2.1 Lane Widths for Two-Lane Rural Roadways .............................. 2.2.2.1
Table 2.2.2.2 Lane Widths for Multilane Rural Roadways ................................ 2.2.2.1
Table 2.2.2.3 Through Lane Widths for Urban Roadways................................ 2.2.2.2
Table 2.2.4.1 Shoulder Widths for Undivided Rural Roads (m) ........................ 2.2.4.2
Table 2.2.8.1 Guide for Lateral Spread of Surface Water Flow ........................ 2.2.8.2
Table 2.2.10.1 Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on Local and
Collector Urban Roads ............................................................. 2.2.10.4
Table 2.2.10.2 Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on Rural Roads ..................... 2.2.10.6
Figures
Figure 2.2.1.1 Urban Street Cross Section Elements Nomenclature ................ 2.2.1.4
Figure 2.2.1.2 Rural Roadway Cross Section Elements Nomenclature ............ 2.2.1.5
Figure 2.2.2.1 Collision Modification Factor for Various Lane Widths and
Traffic Levels versus Annual Average Daily Traffic ..................... 2.2.2.4
Figure 2.2.4.1 Usable Shoulders ....................................................................... 2.2.4.1
Figure 2.2.4.2 Centreline Rumble Strips ............................................................ 2.2.4.5
Figure 2.2.4.3 Shoulder Rumble Strips .............................................................. 2.2.4.6
Figure 2.2.4.4 Shoulder Cross-Slope and Superelevation ................................. 2.2.4.7
Figure 2.2.4.5 Shoulder Rounding ..................................................................... 2.2.4.8
Figure 2.2.4.6 Collision Modification Factor for Various Shoulder
Widths versus Annual Average Daily Traffic ............................. 2.2.4.10
Figure 2.2.5.1 Freeway Medians ....................................................................... 2.2.5.3
Figure 2.2.5.2 Arterial Medians .......................................................................... 2.2.5.5
Figure 2.2.6.1 Typical Sidewalk, Boulevard and Border Dimensions ................ 2.2.6.2
Figure 2.2.6.2 Sidewalk and Driveway Entrances ............................................. 2.2.6.4
Figure 2.2.6.3 Sidewalk Requirements and Typical Dimensions ....................... 2.2.6.6
Figure 2.2.6.4 Sidewalk Ramps and Curb Cuts ................................................. 2.2.6.9
Figure 2.2.7.1 Curb and Gutter Types ............................................................... 2.2.7.2
Figure 2.2.9.1 Effect of Slope on Snow Drifting ................................................. 2.2.9.2
Figure 2.2.9.2 Snow Drifting Patterns for Alternative Median Barriers .............. 2.2.9.3
Figure 2.2.10.1 Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on
Urban Arterial Roads (Underpass) ........................................... 2.2.10.2
Urban Freeways (Underpass) .................................................. 2.2.10.3
Figure 2.2.10.3 Horizontal Clearance on Bridges on
Urban Arterial Roads (Overpass) ............................................. 2.2.10.7
Urban Freeways (Overpass) .................................................... 2.2.10.8
Figure 2.2.10.5 Collision Rate versus Relative Bridge Width
for Two-Lane Two-Way Rural Roads ...................................... 2.2.10.10
Figure 2.2.11.1 Relationship between Frequency of Utility Pole Collisions
and Pole Offset for Three Levels of Pole Density .................... 2.2.11.2
Figure 2.2.11.2 Nomograph for Predicting Utility Pole Collision Rate ............... 2.2.11.3
Figure 2.2.12.1 Staging of New Six-Lane Divided Arterial Street....................... 2.2.12.3
December 2011 Page 2.2.iii

Cross Section Elements
Figure 2.2.12.2 Staging of a New Four-Lane Undivided Arterial Street ............... 2.2.12.5
Figure 2.2.13.1 Typical Section - Public Lanes .................................................. 2.2.13.1
Figure 2.2.13.2 Typical Section - Rural Local Undivided Road .......................... 2.2.13.2
Figure 2.2.13.3 Typical Section - Urban Local Undivided Road ......................... 2.2.13.3
Figure 2.2.13.4 Typical Section - Rural Collector Undivided Road .................... 2.2.13.4
Figure 2.2.13.5 Typical Section - Urban Collector Undivided Road ................... 2.2.13.5
Figure 2.2.13.6 Typical Section - Rural Collector Divided Road ........................ 2.2.13.6
Figure 2.2.13.7 Typical Section - Urban Collector Divided Road ....................... 2.2.13.7
Figure 2.2.13.8 Typical Section - Rural Arterial Undivided Road ........................ 2.2.13.8
Figure 2.2.13.9 Typical Section - Urban Arterial Undivided Road ....................... 2.2.13.9
Figure 2.2.13.10 Typical Section - Rural Arterial Divided Road .......................... 2.2.13.10
Figure 2.2.13.11 Typical Section - Urban Arterial Divided Road ......................... 2.2.13.11
Figure 2.2.13.12 Typical Section - Rural Expressways and Freeways .............. 2.2.13.12
Figure 2.2.13.13 Typical Section - Urban Expressways and Freeways ............. 2.2.13.13
Page 2.2.iv September 1999

2.2.2.2 Explicit Evaluation of data. These variables include lane width,

Safety shoulder width, type of shoulder surface,
pavement edge drops and other factors. In
Lane Widths general, it has been concluded that a wider lane
will provide a greater level of safety than a
There are two links between safety and lane narrower lane; however, the weight of empirical
width. evidence indicates that there is little safety
benefit to be derived by widening lanes beyond
1. The wider the lanes, the larger will be the 3.3 m , and that widening beyond 3.7 m may be
average separation between vehicles to the detriment of safety (except for widened
operating in adjacent lanes. This may lanes on curves and shy distances to curbs).
provide a larger buffer to adsorb the small
random deviations of vehicles from their Figure 2.2.2.1 shows the relationship between
intended path. On roadways that are opposite direction and single-vehicle collisions
identical except for lane widths, drivers may and lane width for given Annual Average Daily
tend to drive faster and follow the preceding Traffic volume.
vehicle more closely on the road that has
wider lanes.3 To illustrate the use of Figure 2.2.2.1, suppose
the designer wishes to determine the effect of
2. A wider lane may provide more room for using 3.05 m lanes rather than 3.65 m lanes
correction in near-collision circumstances. for a two-lane rural road. The Annual Average
For example, a moment’s inattention may Daily Traffic (AADT) of the road is 1500 vehicles
lead a vehicle to drop off the edge onto a per day. The Collision Modification Factor
gravelled shoulder. In the same situation, (CMF) for a 3.65 m lane is 1.00, whereas the
if the driving lane was wider and the CMF for a 3.05 m lane equals 1.02 + (1.30 -
shoulder paved, the driver’s brief moment 1.02)(1500 - 400)/(2000 - 400), or 1.21. This
of inattention may have less serious means that the designer could anticipate 21%
consequences. more single vehicle or opposite direction
incidents if 3.05 m lanes were used rather than
While a great amount of empirical evidence 3.65 m lanes.
about the relationship between lane width and
safety has been accumulated over several Centreline Rumble Strips: Best Practices19, 20
decades, the bulk of available research pertains
to two-lane rural roads. Little is known about On two-lane rural roadways and multi-lane urban
the effect of lane width on multilane or urban and rural roadways, centreline rumble strips can
roadways. The major difficulty faced by be a cost-effective means to reduce head-on and
researchers in assessing the relationship opposite-direction sideswipe collisions. Refer to
between lane width and safety stems from the Figure 2.2.4.2 for typical dimensions of centreline
number of variables encountered in the statistical rumble strips.

Figure 2.2.2.1 Collision Modification Factor for Various Lane Widths and Traffic
3
Levels versus Annual Average Daily Traffic

width reduction can help the designer to 1. Gravelled shoulders provide a clear line of
reach the appropriate decision. demarcation between the edge of travel
lanes and the shoulder but require a higher
6. Shoulder widths on bridge decks for various level of maintenance.
conditions are discussed in Section 2.2.10.
2. Paved or sealed shoulders are safer than
7. Shoulder widths are normally multiples of unpaved shoulders as they provide a
0.5 m. greater recovery and manoeuvring area for
motorists to take evasive action to avoid
2.2.4.3 Surface Treatment of potential collisions or to reduce their
Shoulders: Best Practices severity. Paved shoulders also reduce the
potential for vehicles that stray out of the
Delineating the Shoulder and the Travel Lane driving lane to lose control in loose shoulder
5
material.
It is important to make a clear distinction
between travel lanes and shoulders so as not 3. Partially paved shoulders that have a paved
to encourage the use of a shoulder as a travel width of 0.8 m provide a stable surface to
lane. During the night and in periods of absorb minor deviations of vehicles straying
inclement weather, the ability for the driver to from the travelled lanes.
differentiate between the travelled lanes and the
shoulder enhances the safety of the roadway. 4. The benefits of paved or sealed shoulders
Assisting the driver in this respect can be are generally greater for sections of roads
accomplished in a number of ways, including: on curve or on grade than on flat, tangential
sections of roadway.
1. The use of pavement of a contrasting colour
and/or texture on paved shoulders or the Pavement Edge Drops
use of rumble strips. For example, the
shoulder may be treated with a coarser Pavement edge drops (vertical discontinuities
surface than that of the travel lane, so that at the edge of the paved surface) should be
if a vehicle inadvertently leaves the lane and avoided, particularly on the inside of horizontal
travels onto the shoulder, the change in curves. Trucks are particularly susceptible to
tone of tire noise will alert the driver. roll-over at pavement edge drops because of
their higher centre of gravity, compounded by
2. The use of pavement edge striping. This the potential of load-shifting and the wider off-
is an important and economical measure tracking of the rear wheels of the vehicle.
for delineating the shoulders, particularly
where the shoulder is partially paved with Shoulder Rumble Strips
the same material as the through travel
lane. Shoulder rumble strips are a cost-effective
strategy to reduce single-vehicle run-off-road
3. Shoulders sometimes have a steeper incidents. Shoulder rumble strips are often used
cross-slope than the adjacent travel lane. to provide an audible and tactile warning to the
This further assists the driver in driver that the vehicle has left the travelled
distinguishing between the two. lanes.
Shoulder Material 1. Continuous rumble strips on asphalt

shoulders or regularly spaced rumble strips
In the selection of surface treatment of the along extended sections of asphalt or
shoulder, the designer must consider the concrete shoulders have been shown to
impacts on the level of safety, drainage, and reduce the rate of run-off-road incidents
6,19
maintenance costs. Three types of shoulder significantly.
treatments are available to the designer: paved,
gravelled, and partially paved.

2. On highways with extremely monotonous the driver, on recognizing the difference will
driving conditions, reductions in run-off- reduce speed before moving to the shoulder,
road collisions as high as 60% can be putting themselves and other roadway users in
expected.2, 7 Rumble strips on roadways danger. A number of useful practices can help
having a high volume of bicyclist traffic can the road designer reduce the possibility of these
also serve as a buffer to keep the cyclist situations from occurring.
away from the painted shoulder line,
provided that the shoulder is of sufficient 1. On a tangent section the cross-slope on
width. shoulders may be the same as or up to
0.03 m/m steeper than that of the adjacent
3. A shoulder rumble strip is a raised or grooved travel lane.
pattern in the pavement surface of the
shoulder. The raised rumble strip is not as 2. On sections in which the normal crown is
desirable as the grooved type because of removed and reversed, the shoulder cross-
snow clearing operations. Grooved rumble slope is normally maintained as for the
strips are indented into the pavement of the tangent section.
shoulder of the roadway. In summer, grooved
rumble strips are self-cleaned by highway 3. On superelevated sections, the cross-slope
traffic. In winter, even covered with snow on the low side is normally the same as
the shoulder rumble strips still produce an that of the adjacent travelled lane. On the
effective humming noise when traversed by high side two alternative treatments are in
8
errant vehicles. common use. Some authorities
superelevate the shoulder to match that of
4. Rumble strips may be rolled into the the travel lanes, while others slope the
shoulder surface during the installation of shoulder away from the travel lane to
an asphalt pavement or overlay. A second prevent water runoff from the shoulder from
method is to ‘mill’ the strip into the finished flowing across them.
pavement. Although the cost of milled
rumble strips is more expensive than the 4. In the latter practice, excessive difference
cost of rolled-in strips, milled-in rumble in slope at the common edge should be
strips generally keep their intended shape discouraged to minimize sway in a vehicle
9
during construction. Rolled-in strips have moving to the shoulder and to discourage
the additional limitation of making the reductions in speed before leaving the
compaction of the pavement more difficult. travelled lanes. A maximum algebraic
Milled-in rumble strips tend to produce a difference in cross-slope of 0.08 m/m is
more effective rumbling noise and create used by some authorities.
more vibration for large trucks than the
8
rolled-in type. Refer to Figure 2.2.4.3 for 5. The cross-slope of the shoulder relative to
typical dimensions for shoulder rumble cross-slope of the travelled lanes is
strips. illustrated in Figure 2.2.4.4.
2.2.4.4 Shoulder Cross-Slopes: Additional information pertaining to cross slopes

Best Practices is provided in Chapter 2.1.
The difference in cross-slope between a 2.2.4.5 Shoulder Rounding:

shoulder and an adjacent travel lane can have Best Practices
an impact on safety. When the difference in
cross-slope is significant, a disabled vehicle Shoulder rounding is a transition between the
moving to the shoulder may experience serious shoulder and the constant fill slope or cut side
sway causing the occupants discomfort and slope. It provides lateral support for the
perhaps causing the driver to lose control; or shoulder and also helps reduce the potential of
errant vehicles leaving the roadway becoming

20
Figure 2.2.4.2 Centreline Rumble Strips

8
Figure 2.2.4.3 Shoulder Rumble Strips

Figure 2.2.10.3 Horizontal Clearance on Bridges on Urban Arterial

Roads (Overpass)

Figure 2.2.10.4 Horizontal Clearance on Bridges on Urban Freeways (Overpass)
short overpass (and at interchanges) with introduced barrier system
barrier offset 1
X X barrier d d
L R + face width = L R
4-lane 6+-lane 4-lane 6+-lane W 4-lane 6+-lane 4 lane 6+-lane
m m m m m m m m m
2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2
Note: 1. For X (6+lane), the cross-section elements on structures should match those
L
of the approach, i.e. left shoulder on multi-lane = 3.0 m.
2
long overpass (.50 m) with continuous barrier system
barrier offset 3
X X barrier d d
L R + face width = L R
4-lane 6+-lane 4-lane 6+-lane W 4-lane 6+-lane 4 lane 6+-lane
m m m m m m m m m
1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.2
Notes: 2. Dimensions may vary with local policy.

3. XL and XR: (6+ lane) 2.0 m is minimum width diabled vehicle provision,
a requirement on both sides of high speed multi-lane facilities.

REFERENCES 11. Knuiman, M.W., Council, F.M., and Reinfurt,

D.W., “Association of Median Width and
1. “Human Factors Research in Highway Highway Accident Rates”, Transportation
Safety”, Transportation Research Circular Research Record No. 1401, Washington,
414, Transportation Research Board, D.C., 1993.
12. Zeeger, C.V., and Council F.M., “Safety
2. “Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report Effectiveness of Highway Design Features
209”, Transportation Research Board, - Volume III - Cross sections”, FHWA-RD-
National Research Council, Washington, 91-06, Federal Highway Administration,
D.C., 1985. November 1992.
3. Hauer, E. “Literature Review and Analysis 13. ITE Technical Council Committee 5-5,
on Lane Widths”, University of Toronto, “Guidelines for Urban Major Street Design”,
1998. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1984.
4. American Association of State Highway and 14. Zegeer, C.V. and Parker, M.R., “Cost-
Transportation Officials, “A Policy on Effectiveness of Countermeasures for
Geometric Design of Highways and Utility Pole Accidents”, Report No. FHWA/
Streets”, Washington, D.C., 1994. RD-83, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., September 1983.
5. Ogden, K.W., Pearson, R.A., “Road and
Traffic Factors in Truck Safety”, 15. Turner, D.S., “Prediction of Bridge Accident
Proceedings 16th Australian Road Rates”, Journal of Transportation
Research Board Conference, Part 4. Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 1, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY,
6. Harwood, D.W., “Use of Rumble Strips to January 1984.
Enhance Safety”, Synthesis of Highway
Practice 191, Transportation Research 16. Mak, K.K., “Effect of Bridge Width on
Board, Washington, D.C., 1993. Highway Safety”, State of the Art Report 6,
Relationship Between Safety and Key
7. Hickey Jr., J.J., “Shoulder Rumble Strip Highway Features, Transportation
Effectiveness: Drift-Off-Road Accident Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1987.
Reductions on the Pennsylvania Turnpike”,
Transportation Research Record No. 1573, 17. Ogden,K.W.,”Safer Roads: A Guide to
Washington, D.C., 1997. Road Safety Engineering”, Avery Technical,
1995.
8. Alberta Transportation and Utilities, “A
Review of Practices for Use of Rumble 18. Harwood, D.W., “Multi-lane Design
Strips on Alberta’s Rural Highways”, Alternatives For Improving Suburban
Technical Standards Branch, Edmonton, Highways” NCHRP Report 282,
Alberta, 1998. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1986.
9. Khan, A.M. and Bacchus, A., “Economic
Feasibility and Related Issues of Highway 19. Best Practices for the Implementation of
Shoulder Rumble Strips” Transportation Shoulder and Centreline Rumble Strips,
Research Record 1498, Washington, D.C., Transportation Association of Canada, 2001.
1995.
20. National Cooperative Highway Research
10. Hauer, E. “Literature Review and Analysis Program Report 641, “Guidance for the
on Shoulder Widths”, University of Toronto, Design and Application of Shoulder and
1998. Centreline Rumble Strips”, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
December 2011 Page 2.2.R.1

Cross Section Element
Page 2.2.R.2 September 1999

Transportation
Association of
Canada
Geometric
Design
Guide for
Canadian
Roads
Part 2
September 1999
Updated December 2011
The Transportation Association of Canada is a national association with a mission to promote the
provision of safe, secure, efficient, effective and environmentally and financially sustainable
transportation services in support of Canada’s social and economic goals. The association is a
neutral forum for gathering or exchanging ideas, information and knowledge on technical guidelines
and best practices. In Canada as a whole, TAC has a primary focus on roadways and their strategic
linkages and inter-relationships with other components of the transportation system. In urban
areas, TAC’s primary focus is on the movement of people, goods and services and its relationship
with land use patterns.
L’ATC est une association d’envergure nationale dont la mission est de promouvoir la sécurité, la
sûreté, l’efficience, l’efficacité et le respect de l’environnement dans le cadre de la prestation de
services financièrement durables de transport, le tout à l’appui des objectifs sociaux et économiques
du Canada. L’ATC est une tribune neutre de collecte et d’échange d’idées, d’informations et de
connaissances à l’appui de l’élaboration de lignes directrices techniques et de bonnes pratiques.
À l’échelle du pays, l’Association s’intéresse principalement au secteur routier et à ses liens et
interrelations stratégiques avec les autres composantes du réseau de transport. En milieu urbain,
l’Association s’intéresse non seulement au transport des personnes et des marchandises, mais
encore à la prestation de services à la collectivité et aux incidences de toutes ces activités sur les
modèles d’aménagement du territoire.
© Transportation Association of Canada, 1999

2323 St. Laurent Boulevard
Ottawa, Canada K1G 4J8
Tel. (613) 736-1350
Fax: (613) 736-1395
Web site: www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 1-55187-131-9
December 2011
2.3 INTERSECTIONS
2.3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 2.3.1.1
2.3.1.1 General .......................................................................................... 2.3.1.1
2.3.1.2 Definitions ...................................................................................... 2.3.1.1
2.3.1.3 Elements of Design ....................................................................... 2.3.1.3
2.3.1.4 Traffic Manoeuvres and Conflicts .................................................. 2.3.1.4
2.3.1.5 Traffic Control Measures ................................................................ 2.3.1.9
2.3.1.6 Safety Considerations ................................................................... 2.3.1.9
2.3.1.7 Intersection Spacing Considerations ........................................... 2.3.1.11
2.3.1.8 Traffic Signal Spacing and Progression ....................................... 2.3.1.15
2.3.1.9 Design Options for Urban Residential Areas ............................... 2.3.1.17
2.3.1.10 Intersection Layout for New and Retrofit Design .......................... 2.3.1.18
2.3.2 ALIGNMENT ............................................................................................... 2.3.2.1

2.3.2.1 Design Speed ................................................................................ 2.3.2.1
2.3.2.2 Horizontal Alignment ...................................................................... 2.3.2.1
2.3.2.3 Vertical Alignment and Cross-Slope ............................................... 2.3.2.4
2.3.2.4 Combined Vertical and Horizontal Alignments ............................. 2.3.2.11
2.3.2.5 Reduced Superelevation Through Intersections .......................... 2.3.2.13
2.3.2.6 Realignments for Retrofit ............................................................. 2.3.2.16
2.3.3 SIGHT DISTANCE ...................................................................................... 2.3.3.1

2.3.3.1 General .......................................................................................... 2.3.3.1
2.3.3.2 Sight Triangle ................................................................................. 2.3.3.1
2.3.3.3 Sight Distance Requirements for Specific
Traffic Control Devices .................................................................. 2.3.3.4
2.3.3.4 Decision Sight Distance .............................................................. 2.3.3.12
2.3.3.5 Summary ..................................................................................... 2.3.3.16
2.3.3.6 Sight Distance at Bridge Structures ............................................. 2.3.3.16
2.3.3.7 Sight Distance at Railway Crossings .......................................... 2.3.3.19
2.3.4 SIMPLE INTERSECTIONS ........................................................................ 2.3.4.1

2.3.4.1 General .......................................................................................... 2.3.4.1
2.3.4.2 Design Vehicle ............................................................................... 2.3.4.4
2.3.4.3 Corner Radius Considerations and Design ................................... 2.3.4.4
2.3.4.4 Shoulders at Simple Intersections ............................................... 2.3.4.10
2.3.5 FLARED INTERSECTIONS AND AUXILIARY LANES ............................... 2.3.5.1

2.3.5.1 General and Definitions ................................................................. 2.3.5.1
2.3.5.2 Guidelines for the Application of Right-Turn
Taper and Bay Tapers with Auxiliary Lanes ................................... 2.3.5.2

Intersections
2.3.5.3 Design Elements for Right-Turn Tapers

Without Auxiliary Lanes ................................................................. 2.3.5.2
2.3.5.4 Design Elements for Right-Turn Tapers with
Auxiliary Lanes .............................................................................. 2.3.5.4
2.3.5.5 Effect of Grade .............................................................................. 2.3.5.6
2.3.6 CHANNELIZATION ...................................................................................... 2.3.6.1

2.3.6.2 Principles of Channelization .......................................................... 2.3.6.2
2.3.6.3 Guidelines for the Application of Channelization ............................ 2.3.6.3
2.3.6.4 Right-Turn Designs ........................................................................ 2.3.6.3
2.3.6.5 Traffic Islands ................................................................................ 2.3.6.5
2.3.7 TURNING ROADWAYS ............................................................................... 2.3.7.1

2.3.7.1 General .......................................................................................... 2.3.7.1
2.3.7.2 Radii and Curvature for Turning Roadways ................................... 2.3.7.1
2.3.7.3 Turning Roadway Widths............................................................... 2.3.7.2
2.3.7.4 Speed-Change Lanes and Tapers ................................................. 2.3.7.2
2.3.7.5 Yield Taper at Minor Roadway ........................................................ 2.3.7.4
2.3.7.6 Method of Lane Drop for Dual Lane Right-Turning Roadway ......... 2.3.7.4
2.3.8 LEFT-TURN LANES ................................................................................... 2.3.8.1

2.3.8.2 Guidelines for the Application of Left-Turn Lanes ........................... 2.3.8.1
2.3.8.3 Approach and Departure Tapers .................................................... 2.3.8.1
2.3.8.4 Single Left-Turn Lane ..................................................................... 2.3.8.3
2.3.8.5 Left-Turn Lanes for Four-Lane and Six-Lane Roadways ............. 2.3.8.13
2.3.8.6 Multiple Left-Turn Lanes ............................................................... 2.3.8.15
2.3.8.7 Slot Left-Turn Lanes .................................................................... 2.3.8.22
2.3.8.8 Intersections on Curve ................................................................. 2.3.8.26
2.3.9 TRANSITION BETWEEN FOUR-LANE ROADWAY AND

TWO-LANE ROADWAY AT INTERSECTIONS ........................................... 2.3.9.1
2.3.9.1 Undivided Roadways ..................................................................... 2.3.9.1
2.3.9.2 Divided Roadways ......................................................................... 2.3.9.1
2.3.10 WIDENING THROUGH A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ........................ 2.3.10.1
Page 2.3.ii December 2011

2.3.11 MEDIAN OPENINGS ................................................................................ 2.3.11.1

2.3.11.1 Use and Function ......................................................................... 2.3.11.1
2.3.11.2 Elements of Design ..................................................................... 2.3.11.1
2.3.11.3 U-Turns ........................................................................................ 2.3.11.2
2.3.11.4 Emergency and Maintenance Vehicle Crossings ........................ 2.3.11.2
2.3.12 ROUNDABOUTS ...................................................................................... 2.3.12.1

2.3.12.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 2.3.12.1
2.3.12.2 Roundabout Characteristics ........................................................ 2.3.12.1
2.3.12.3 Categories of Roundabouts ......................................................... 2.3.12.1
2.3.12.4 Typical Range of Geometric Parameters .................................... 2.3.12.3
2.3.12.5 Location/Application of Roundabouts ........................................... 2.3.12.3
2.3.12.6 Geometry/Road Capacity ............................................................ 2.3.12.4
2.3.12.7 Safety Analysis............................................................................. 2.3.12.4
2.3.13 RAILWAY GRADE CROSSINGS ............................................................... 2.3.13.1

2.3.13.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 2.3.13.1
2.3.13.2 Location of New Crossings .......................................................... 2.3.13.1
2.3.13.3 Vertical Alignment ......................................................................... 2.3.13.3
2.3.13.4 Horizontal Alignment .................................................................... 2.3.13.3
2.3.13.5 Width of Crossing ........................................................................ 2.3.13.3
2.3.13.6 Sight Distance at Railway Crossings .......................................... 2.3.13.4
2.3.14 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AT-GRADE ................................................. 2.3.14.1

2.3.14.1 Intersection Crosswalks .............................................................. 2.3.14.1
2.3.14.2 Accommodation of Persons with Disabilities ............................... 2.3.14.1
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 2.3.R.1
TABLES
Table 2.3.1.1 Desirable Spacing Between Signalized Intersections (m) ........... 2.3.1.17
Table 2.3.2.1 Design Values for Rate of Change of Cross-Slope
for Intersection Areas .................................................................. 2.3.2.16
Table 2.3.2.2 Opportunities for Retrofit ............................................................. 2.3.2.18
Table 2.3.3.1 Distance Travelled in 3.0 s ............................................................ 2.3.3.4
Table 2.3.3.2 Ratios of Acceleration Times on Grades ....................................... 2.3.3.6
Table 2.3.3.2a Time Gap for Turning Movements from Stop ............................... 2.3.3.11
Table 2.3.3.3 Minimum Property Requirements at 900 Intersections
for Stop Control ............................................................................ 2.3.3.13
Table 2.3.3.4 Summary Table for Design of Sight Distance
at Intersections ............................................................................ 2.3.3.15
December 2011 Page 2.3.iii

Intersections
Table 2.3.3.5 Sight Distance for Left Turns at Unsignalized

Interchange Ramp Terminals ....................................................... 2.3.3.15
Table 2.3.4.1 Guidelines for Shoulder Treatment at
Simple Rural Intersections ........................................................... 2.3.4.12
Table 2.3.5.1 Right-Turn Tapers Without Auxiliary Lanes .................................... 2.3.5.4
Table 2.3.5.2 Right-Turn Taper with Parallel Deceleration Lane Design .............. 2.3.5.5
Table 2.3.5.3 Grade Factors for Deceleration Length ......................................... 2.3.5.6
Table 2.3.7.1 Design Widths for Turning Roadways at Intersections .................. 2.3.7.4
Table 2.3.8.1 Approach and Departure Taper Ratios and Lengths for
Left Turns at Intersections ............................................................. 2.3.8.2
Table 2.3.8.2 Bay Tapers - Straight Line ............................................................. 2.3.8.5
Table 2.3.8.3 Bay Tapers - Symmetrical Reverse Curves ................................... 2.3.8.5
Table 2.3.9.1 Parallel Lane and Taper Lengths for Transition between
Undivided Four-Lane Roadway and Two-Lane Roadway ............. 2.3.9.1
Table 2.3.11.1 Minimum Median Widths for U-Turns ........................................... 2.3.11.3
Table 2.3.12.1 Roundabout Categories ............................................................... 2.3.12.3
Table 2.3.12.2 Typical Range of Geometric Parameters .................................... 2.3.12.3
Table 2.3.12.3 Geometry/Capacity Relationships ............................................... 2.3.12.3
Table 2.3.13.1 Allowable Difference Between Roadway
Gradient and Railway Cross-Slope ............................................. 2.3.13.3
Figures
Figure 2.3.1.1 Intersection Configurations ............................................................ 2.3.1.2
Figure 2.3.1.2 Typical Traffic Movements Within an Intersection
and its Approach ........................................................................... 2.3.1.5
Figure 2.3.1.3 Conflict Points and Collision Rates of Three-
and Four-Legged Intersections ..................................................... 2.3.1.7
Figure 2.3.1.4 Conflict Areas at Intersections ....................................................... 2.3.1.8
Figure 2.3.1.5 Prohibiting or Discouraging Turns at Intersections ...................... 2.3.1.10
Figure 2.3.1.6 Cross Road Intersection Spacing Adjacent to Interchanges ....... 2.3.1.13
Figure 2.3.1.7 Intersection Spacing / Channelization Treatment
at Diamond Interchanges ............................................................ 2.3.1.14
Figure 2.3.1.8 Desirable Signal Spacing for Combinations
of Cycle Length ........................................................................... 2.3.1.16
Figure 2.3.1.9 Intersection Analysis Procedure .................................................. 2.3.1.19
Figure 2.3.2.1 Examples of Realignment of Intersections .................................... 2.3.2.3
Figure 2.3.2.2 Fitting Minor Roadway Profiles to the Major Roadway
Cross Section ................................................................................ 2.3.2.5
Figure 2.3.2.3 Pavement Cross Sections, Typical Minor Roadway
Profile Adjustment ......................................................................... 2.3.2.6
Figure 2.3.2.4 Pavement Cross Sections, Adjustment of Cross-Slope ................ 2.3.2.7
Figure 2.3.2.5 Cross-Slope Modification at Intersection of Two Roadways
of Equal Classification ................................................................... 2.3.2.9
Figure 2.3.2.6 Pavement Cross Sections, Typical Adjustment of Profile and
Cross-Slope at Two Roadways of Equal Classification ............... 2.3.2.10
Page 2.3.iv December 2011

Figure 2.3.2.7 Combined Vertical and Horizontal Alignments of Intersections .... 2.3.2.12
Figure 2.3.2.8 Effect of Geometry on Intersection Collision Rates ..................... 2.3.2.14
Figure 2.3.2.9 Relationship of Speed, Radius and Superelevation Through
Intersections ................................................................................ 2.3.2.15
Figure 2.3.2.10 Shifts in Horizontal Alignment Across Intersections ..................... 2.3.2.19
Figure 2.3.3.1 Approach Sight Triangles ............................................................... 2.3.3.2
Figure 2.3.3.2 Departure Sight Triangles .............................................................. 2.3.3.3
Figure 2.3.3.3 Assumed Acceleration Curves (Acceleration
From Stop Control on Minor Road) ............................................... 2.3.3.7
Figure 2.3.3.4a Sight Distance for Crossing Movements and Vehicles Turning
Left across Passenger Vehicle approaching from the Left ............ 2.3.3.8
Figure 2.3.3.4b Sight Distance for Turning Movements with Vehicles
approaching in the Intended Direction of Travel ............................. 2.3.3.9
Figure 2.3.3.5 Sight Distance and Visibility Triangle at 900 Intersections for
Approaches with Stop Control ..................................................... 2.3.3.14
Figure 2.3.3.6 Decision Sight Distance .............................................................. 2.3.3.17
Figure 2.3.3.7 Measurement of Sight Distance at Ramp Terminals
Adjacent to Overpass Structures ................................................. 2.3.3.18
Figure 2.3.4.1 Simple Intersections ...................................................................... 2.3.4.2
Figure 2.3.4.2 Intersections with Auxiliary Lanes for T-Intersections .................... 2.3.4.3
Figure 2.3.4.3 Intersection with Auxiliary Lanes for Cross-Intersections ............... 2.3.4.5
Figure 2.3.4.4 Edge of Pavement Design - Circular Curve .................................. 2.3.4.6
Figure 2.3.4.5 Edge of Pavement Design - Two-Centred Compound Curve ........ 2.3.4.8
Figure 2.3.4.6 Edge of Pavement Design - Three-Centred Compound Curve ..... 2.3.4.9
Figure 2.3.4.7 Shoulder Transition at Open Throat Intersections
with Auxiliary Lanes ..................................................................... 2.3.4.11
Figure 2.3.4.8 Gravel Shoulder Treatment at Simple Intersections .................... 2.3.4.11
Figure 2.3.4.9 Paved Shoulder Treatment at Intersections ................................ 2.3.4.13
Figure 2.3.4.10 Shoulder Treatment with Concrete Curb
and Gutter at Intersections .......................................................... 2.3.4.13
Figure 2.3.5.1 Typical Right-Turn Taper Lane Design at T-Intersections ............. 2.3.5.3
Figure 2.3.5.2 Typical Right-Turn Taper Lane Design at Cross-Intersections ...... 2.3.5.3
Figure 2.3.5.3 Right-Turn Taper with Parallel Deceleration Lane Design ............. 2.3.5.5
Figure 2.3.6.1 Typical Right-Turn Designs ........................................................... 2.3.6.4
Figure 2.3.6.2 Directional Islands ......................................................................... 2.3.6.6
Figure 2.3.6.3 Divisional Islands ........................................................................... 2.3.6.7
Figure 2.3.6.4 Refuge Islands .............................................................................. 2.3.6.7
Figure 2.3.6.5 Opposing Divisional Islands .......................................................... 2.3.6.8
Figure 2.3.6.6 Offset Divisional Islands ................................................................ 2.3.6.8
Figure 2.3.6.7 Curbed Islands - No Shoulder ..................................................... 2.3.6.11
Figure 2.3.6.8 Curbed Island - Outside Shoulder ............................................... 2.3.6.12
Figure 2.3.7.1 Turning Roadway With Spirals ...................................................... 2.3.7.3
Figure 2.3.7.2 Yield Taper at Channelized Intersection,
Major Roadway to Minor Roadway ................................................ 2.3.7.5
Figure 2.3.7.3 Lane Drop, Dual Lane Right-Turning Roadway ............................. 2.3.7.6
Figure 2.3.8.1 Left-Turn Lane, Pictorial Description of Terms .............................. 2.3.8.2
Figure 2.3.8.2 Left-Turn Lanes at T-Intersections................................................. 2.3.8.4
December 2011 Page 2.3.v

Intersections
Figure 2.3.8.3 Left-Turn Lane at Cross-Intersection ............................................. 2.3.8.5

Figure 2.3.8.4 Left-Turn Lane and Taper with Symmetrical Reverse Curves ....... 2.3.8.6
Figure 2.3.8.5 Left-Turn Lanes in Two Directions ................................................. 2.3.8.8
Figure 2.3.8.6 Left-Turn Lane Designs Along Four-Lane Undivided
Roadways, No Median .................................................................. 2.3.8.9
Figure 2.3.8.7 Introduced Raised Median ........................................................... 2.3.8.10
Figure 2.3.8.8 Turning Lane Design, Raised Median .......................................... 2.3.8.12
Figure 2.3.8.9 Left-Turn Slip Around Design - Tangent Alignment ....................... 2.3.8.13
Figure 2.3.8.10 Painted Left-Turn Lanes, Four-Lane Undivided Roadway ............ 2.3.8.14
Figure 2.3.8.11 Left-Turn Lane Design, Four-Lane Undivided
Roadway T- Intersection .............................................................. 2.3.8.16
Figure 2.3.8.12 Opposing Left-Turn Lane Design, Four-Lane Undivided
Roadway Cross Intersection ........................................................ 2.3.8.16
Figure 2.3.8.13 Turning Paths of Double Left-Turn Lanes ................................... 2.3.8.17
Figure 2.3.8.14 Double Left-Turn Lane Configurations ........................................ 2.3.8.18
Figure 2.3.8.15 Triple Left-Turns .......................................................................... 2.3.8.21
Figure 2.3.8.16 Typical Slot Left-Turn Lane Designs ............................................ 2.3.8.23
Figure 2.3.8.17 Volume Warrant for Slot Left-Turn Lane ...................................... 2.3.8.25
Figure 2.3.8.18 Intersections on Curve ................................................................. 2.3.8.27
Figure 2.3.9.1 Transition Between Undivided Four-Lane Roadway
and Two-Lane Roadway Intersection ........................................... 2.3.9.1
Figure 2.3.9.2 Transition between Four-Lane Divided and Two-Lane
Roadway Merge ........................................................................... 2.3.9.2
Figure 2.3.10.1 Widening Through a Signalized Intersection ............................... 2.3.10.2
Figure 2.3.12.1 Geometric Elements of a Roundabout ........................................ 2.3.12.2
Figure 2.3.13.1 Restrictions on the Proximity of Intersections
and Entranceways to Unrestricted Grade Crossing .................... 2.3.13.2
Page 2.3.vi December 2011

Figure 2.3.2.9 Relationship of Speed, Radius and Superelevation Through

Intersections
Notes: Illustrates example problem in Section 2.3.2.5

Rates of superelevation greater than 0.04 m/m through an intersection
are generally not recommended.

Intersections
Table 2.3.2.1 Design Values for Rate of Change of Cross-Slope for

Intersection Areas
Change in Design Speed (km/h)

Rate of Superelevation < 40 40 50 > 50
m/m/40 m length 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07

m/m/10 m length 0.03 0.022 0.020 0.016
There are physical and operational constraints detrimental to effective operation through the
that limit how and to what extent the through intersection.
roadway pavement is transitioned from the
superelevated section to normal crown at the 2.3.2.6 Realignments for Retrofit
intersections; the designer should determine
the “best fit” that minimizes safety risks and An existing urban intersection may undergo a
local right of way impact at a reasonable cost retrofit for a variety of reasons including:
based on the methods described in this section.
• elimination or reduction of a geometric
Too great a difference in cross-slope may cause condition(s) contributing to vehicular traffic
vehicles travelling over the ridge formed or pedestrian safety problems
between the through pavement and the
auxiliary lane pavement downstream of the • increasing capacity by adding through or
turning roadway to sway with possible hazard turning lanes and/or improved
(see Subsection 2.3.2.3). channelization
In some cases, such as the retrofitting of an When an intersection retrofit is undertaken, the
intersection in a built-up area, the use of initial objective is generally to eliminate
superelevation on a main line curve may not elements that cause unsafe operating
be possible due to existing physical controls, conditions. Consideration is also given to
and retaining a normal crown may represent upgrading all elements within current design
the optimum configuration. The selection of the domain. A detailed review of the collision history
most appropriate cross-slope or superelevation at the intersection is often beneficial in
rate is based on the specific conditions at the identifying geometric elements that may be
intersection such as physical vertical controls contributing to undesirable operating conditions.
and the principal traffic movements. In many
cases it is advantageous to explore the Examples of common types of intersection
opportunity to provide at least 0.02 m/m of retrofitting related to operational concerns are
superelevation (reverse crown) on the curved as follows:
roadway to enhance the safe operation of
through traffic. • improving intersection skew angles
Reducing or eliminating superelevation along • flattening or eliminating horizontal curves

main line curves through intersection areas and through or approaching the intersection
along turning roadways assists in providing
reasonable operating conditions for turning • regrading the intersection area or the
vehicles. Drivers travelling through an approaches to improve sight lines
intersection area typically reduce their speed
due to the presence of a conflict zone. For this • adjusting the approach profiles to provide
reason, reduced superelevation is generally not flatter grades where vehicles start and stop

Figure 2.3.3.2 Departure Sight Triangles
Area bounded by
123456789012345678901
123456789012345678901
AASHTO B1 and B-2b on
123456789012345678901
D = Figure 2.3.3.4b
123456789012345678901
1
D = line B-1 on Figure 2.3.3.4a
123456789012345678901
2
a
123456789012345678901
123456789012345678901
Area bounded by AASHTO B2
123456789012345678901
and Cb on Figure 2.3.3.4b
123456789012345678901
123456789012345678901
*In urban situations, the distance “d” may be governed by adjacent view obstructions.
Note: Sight line set-back distance is typically between 4.4 m and 5.4 m from the edge-of-traveled lane.

Intersections
traffic control may be required to improve traffic distance travelled by the approaching vehicles
operation. at their assumed speeds set the limits of the
sight triangle. Table 2.3.3.1 provides the rounded
2.3.3.3 Sight Distance distances that vehicles travel during 3.0 s at
Requirements for various approach speeds. Intersections with no
Specific Traffic Control control operating at speeds higher than that
Devices shown in the table are not typical in both urban
and rural areas.
No Control
Intersections with approach sight triangles with
Uncontrolled intersections are typically only dimensions approximately equal to those
used in urban areas under low-speed, low-volume indicated are not necessarily collision free. An
conditions, such as, at the intersection of lightly unfamiliar driver may not realize the intersection
travelled local roads or public lanes, where the is uncontrolled and may not proceed with
following conditions exist: caution. There is also potential for confusion
when a driver on one roadway is confronted with
• the total AADT for the intersection is a succession of vehicles on the intersecting
1000 -1500 vehicles (i.e. vehicles from both roadway. Even where only one vehicle on each
intersecting roadways) of the adjacent legs approaches an intersection,
both vehicles may begin to slow down and reach
• the safe approach speed (based on available the intersection at the same time. This
stopping sight distance) is approximately occurrence, however, is slight because of the
equal to or greater than the 85 percentile great number of speed change possibilities, the
speed or the speed limit whichever is less time available, and the normal decrease in speed
as an intersection is approached under such
• collision history indicates two or less right conditions. In addition, a vehicle approaching an
angle collisions per year
1
uncontrolled intersection must yield the right of
way to vehicles approaching the intersection on
In general it is preferable to provide positive the right. Where the minimum triangle described
regulation of right of way at intersections. Where above cannot be provided, traffic control devices
an intersection is not controlled by yield signs, should be introduced to slow down or stop
stop signs, or signals, the driver on each vehicles on one roadway even if both roadways
intersection approach should, at a minimum, be are lightly travelled.
able to perceive a potential conflict in sufficient
time to alter the vehicle speed before reaching For uncontrolled crossings, drivers on both
the intersection to avoid a collision. The approach roadways should be able to see the intersection
sight triangle is illustrated on Figure 2.3.3.1, and the traffic on the intersecting roadway in
which also includes the geometric parameters sufficient time to stop before reaching the
of the sight triangle. A time of 3.0 s, which intersection. The safe stopping distances for
includes 2.0 s for perception and reaction and intersection design are the same as those used
an additional 1.0 s to decelerate or accelerate for design in any other section of roadway.
to avoid collision, is the limiting condition in Chapter 1.2 provides stopping sight distance
providing an appropriate sight triangle for the guidelines.
design of intersections with no control. The
Table 2.3.3.1 Distance Travelled in 3.0 s
Speed (km/h) 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Rounded Distance (m) 15 15 20 25 30 35 40 40 45 50

It is assumed that vehicles will seldom be See Chapter 1.2 for the stopping sight distances
required to stop at uncontrolled intersections. relating to these speeds.1
However, in the event that a vehicle has to stop,
the sight distance requirements for departure To account for the situation where a vehicle on
would be the same as those shown for stop the minor roadway is required to stop, the sight
control.1 line for the departure from the minor roadway
onto or across the major roadway is established
Yield Control in the same manner as for the stop control
intersection as below in Stop Control.
In this design condition, the minor roadway is
posted with a yield sign where it intersects the Stop Control
major roadway. Vehicles on the minor roadway
controlled by a yield sign typically approach the For a stopped vehicle the departure sight
controlled intersection at a reduced speed. distance is considered for each of the three basic
manoeuvres that may occur at an intersection.
The yield control condition is most applicable to Figure 2.3.3.2 illustrates the three possible
the intersection of a roadway with a local road, manoeuvres. These manoeuvres are:
or, a local road with a collector under the following
conditions: • to travel across the intersecting roadway by
clearing traffic on both the left and right of
• the total AADT entering the intersection is the crossing vehicle without interfering with
1500 - 3000 vehicles (i.e. vehicles from both the passage of the through traffic
intersecting roadways)
• to turn left onto the intersecting roadway by
• the approach speed (based on available first clearing traffic approaching from the left,
stopping sight distance) is equal to or greater and then to accelerate to the normal running
than 20 km/h speed of the vehicles from the right, without
interfering with the passage of the through
• a history indicates three or more right-angle traffic
collisions per year where there has been no
•
1
previous control to turn right onto the intersecting roadway
by entering the traffic stream approaching
The minimum approach sight triangle for a yield from the left and accelerate so as to not
control intersection is established by determining cause interference with the through traffic
the following: stream
• the minimum stopping sight distance at a a) Crossing Sight Distance

reduced speed along the controlled minor
roadway The sight distance for a crossing manoeuvre is
based on the time it takes for the stopped vehicle
• the minimum stopping sight distance along to clear the intersection and the distance that a
the uncontrolled roadway vehicle would travel along the major roadway at
its design speed in that amount of time. As such,
Suggested speeds on the yield controlled the required crossing time depends upon the
approach are: perception and reaction time of the crossing
driver, the vehicle acceleration time, the width of
• urban conditions - 20 km/h the major roadway, the length of the crossing
vehicle and the speed of an approaching vehicle
• rural conditions - 30 or 40 km/h on the major roadway.
Again, it is preferable to provide for decision sight

distance rather than stopping sight distance.

Intersections
The required minimum departure sight distance L = overall length of the crossing vehicle
along the major roadway is given by the (m)
expression:
V (J + t ) Empirical studies of minimum gaps required by
D= (2.3.1) drivers to enter or cross a moving traffic stream
3 .6
from a stopped position have shown that the
average driver requires a six second (6 s) gap
Where: between vehicles in the moving stream. This value
varies with the behaviour of local drivers, and is
D = minimum crossing sight distance verified for the area in which the design is being
along the major roadway from taken. The value of (J + t) is not less than 6 s.
intersection (m) Crossing sight distance is also provided on
Figure 2.3.3.4 as Line A.
V = design speed of the major roadway
(km/h) In the case of divided roadways, widths of
median equal to or greater than the length of
J = perception and reaction time of vehicle (L) enable the crossing to be made in
crossing driver (s) two steps. The vehicle crosses the first
pavement, stops within the protected area of the
t = time (s) to cross the major median opening, and then awaits an opportunity
roadway “s” to complete the second crossing step. For
divided roadways with medians less than L, the
The time J is that needed for the driver to look in median width is included as part of the w value.
both directions along the major roadway, shift
gears if necessary and prepare to start. Some A correction for the effect of grade on
of these operations are done simultaneously by acceleration time can be made by multiplying
many drivers, and some operations, such as by a constant ratio to the time (t) as determined
shifting gears, may be done before looking up for level conditions. Ratios of the accelerating
or down the roadway. Even though most drivers time on various grades to those on the level are
may require only a fraction of a second, a value shown in Table 2.3.3.2. The adjusted value of t
of J should be used in design to represent the can then be used to determine the minimum
time taken by the slower driver. A value of 2.0 s crossing sight distance.
11
is assumed.
The time t is given for a range of crossing

distances, s, by the curves for four design
10
vehicles in Figure 2.3.3.3. The crossing
distance is computed using the formula: Table 2.3.3.2 Ratios of
Acceleration Times
s=d+w+L (2.3.2)
on Grades
Where:
Design Cross Road Grade, %
Vehicle -4 -2 0 +2 +4
s = distance travelled during
acceleration (m) Passenger
0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3
Car
d = distance from near edge of pavement Single Unit
to front of stopped vehicle (m), 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3
Truck
generally assumed to be 3.0 m
Tractor-
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.7
Semitrailer
w = width of pavement along the path
of the crossing vehicle (m)

Figure 2.3.3.3 Assumed Acceleration Curves (Acceleration From Stop Control

10
on Minor Road)

Intersections
Figure 2.3.3.4a Sight Distance for Crossing Movements and Vehicles Turning
Left across Passenger Vehicle approaching from the Left
A – sight distance for passenger vehicle crossing a two –lane roadway from stop.
B-1 – sight distance for passenger vehicle turning left onto a two-lane roadway across passenger
vehicle approaching from the left.
B-1-4 lane + median – sight distance for passenger vehicle turning left onto a four-lane roadway
across passenger vehicle approaching from the left when median width is less than the vehicle
length.

Figure 2.3.3.4b Sight Distance for Turning Movements with Vehicles

approaching in the Intended Direction of Travel
Area bounded by AASHTO B1 and B-2b (crosshatched) – design domain for sight distance
for passenger vehicle to turn left onto a two-lane roadway without being overtaken by a vehicle
approaching from the right.
Area bounded by AASHTO B2 and Cb (shaded) – design domain for sight distance for
passenger vehicle to turn right onto a two-lane roadway without being overtaken by a vehicle
approaching from the left.

Intersections
b) Turning Sight Distance across a passenger vehicle approaching from

the left is shown on Figure 2.3.3.4a as a dashed
Sight distance for turning movements is normally line (B-1-4 lane + median).
measured from the height of the turning vehicle
driver’s eye to the top of the approaching vehicle. The other two turning scenarios require that
However, a driver cannot clearly detect the additional sight distance be provided such that
presence of an approaching vehicle until some the turning vehicle can attain a desired
part of the vehicle is visible. It is prudent to take percentage of the mainline design speed without
the sight line to the approaching vehicle at some being overtaken by a vehicle approaching in the
depth below the top of the vehicle. This depth intended direction of travel, which is
might vary with distance from the through vehicle. simultaneously assumed to be operating at a
A depth of 150 mm below the top will usually slightly reduced speed. The required sight
alert the turning driver to the presence of a distance under both of these scenarios is
through vehicle. See Chapter 1.2 for vehicle determined using a design domain approach.
height. The increased driver height for trucks is The methodologies used to define both the lower
beneficial for sight distance on crest curves. and upper boundaries for the design domain are
outlined in the following paragraphs.
As illustrated in Figure 2.3.3.2, sufficient sight
distance must be provided for vehicles turning Lower Boundary of Design Domain
from the minor road onto the major road under
each of the following three scenarios: The lower boundary of the design domain is
based on empirical gap acceptance methodology
• Vehicles turning left onto the major roadway presented in AASHTO’s 2001 Policy on
with traffic approaching from the left. Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Acceptable gaps were determined such that
• Vehicles turning left onto the major roadway vehicles travelling on the major road need not
with traffic approaching from the right. reduce their speed to less than 70% of their
initial speed. Field observations have shown that
• Vehicles turning right onto the major the values contained in Table 2.3.3.2a provide
roadway with traffic approaching from the sufficient time gaps to meet this condition. Table
left. 2.3.3.2a also includes appropriate adjustments
to these time gaps to account for vehicle size,
The required sight distance under the first number of lanes on the major road, and approach
scenario is determined using line B-1 in Figure grade on the minor road.
2.3.3.4a. Sufficient sight distance must be
provided such that the turning vehicle will avoid Using the appropriate time gap value, the
interruption of through traffic approaching from intersection sight distance along the major
the left. roadway (in both directions) is determined by:
For divided roadways, the width of the median ISD = (Vmajor x tg) / 3.6 (2.3.3)
determines if the left-turn manoeuvre is
considered as one or two manoeuvres. If the where:
median width is less than the length of the design
vehicle, the sight distance required is based on ISD = intersection sight distance
a single manoeuvre. For this condition, line B-1
would not be sufficient, since it is based on an Vmajor = design speed of the major
undivided two-lane roadway. Additional sight roadway (km/h)
distance is needed at a divided highway with a
narrow median to account for the extra distance tg = time gap for turning vehicle from
required for the vehicle to cross the additional the minor roadway to enter the
lanes and the median, as part of the left turn major roadway (s)
manoeuvre. The sight distance for a passenger
vehicle to turn left onto a four-lane roadway

The intersection sight distance requirements for sight distance determined from line B-2b on
a passenger vehicle turning left onto a two-lane Figure 2.3.3.4b.
roadway without being overtaken by a vehicle
approaching from the right is represented by line Heuristics
AASHTO B1 in Figure 2.3.3.4b. Similarly, the
intersection sight distance required for a It is the designer’s responsibility to use their
passenger vehicle to turn right onto a two-lane discretion to select appropriate sight distances
roadway without being overtaken by a vehicle values from the design domain. An effort should
approaching from the left is represented by line be made to incorporate the upper boundary
AASHTO B2. values of the design domain when providing such
distance is a feasible option. Consideration
Upper Boundary of Design Domain should also be given to such factors as the
classification of the roadway and the anticipated
The upper boundary of the design domain is traffic growth rates. Maximum sight distance is
based on a more theoretical application of the desired on higher class roadways and in areas
gap acceptance methodology, which provides where high traffic volumes are present.
more conservative values of sight distance. This
methodology assumes that vehicles on the major Table 2.3.3.2a Time Gap for
roadway should not reduce their speed to less Turning Movements
than 85% of the design speed, and that a gap of
from Stop
at least 2 seconds must be maintained between
the turning vehicle and the approaching vehicle.
Time gap tg (s)
To determine sight distance, the first step is to
establish the distance travelled by the turning Design Vehicle Left-turn Right-turn
vehicle in order to reach a speed equal to 85%
of the mainline speed. Next, the distance that Passenger car 7.5 6.5
the approaching vehicle would travel in the same
Single-unit truck 9.5 8.5
time plus 2 seconds (while slowing to 85% of
the design speed) is determined. Finally, the Combination truck 11.5 10.5
required sight distance is calculated as the
difference between the total distance traveled
by the approaching vehicle and the distance
travelled beyond the intersection by the turning Note: Time gaps are for a stopped vehicle to
vehicle. turn right or left onto a two-lane highway with no
median and grades of 3 percent or less. The
Based on this methodology, the intersection sight table values require adjustment as follows:
distance requirements for a passenger vehicle
turning left onto a two-lane roadway without For multilane highways: Add 0.5 seconds for
being overtaken by a vehicle approaching from passenger cars or 0.7 seconds for trucks for
the right is represented by line B-2b in Figure each additional lane, in excess of one, to be
2.3.3.4b. Similarly, the intersection sight crossed by the turning vehicle.
distance for a passenger vehicle to turn right
onto a two-lane roadway without being overtaken For minor road approach grades: If the approach
by a vehicle approaching from the left is grade is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent;
represented by line Cb. add 0.2 seconds for each percent grade for a
left turning vehicle or 0.1 seconds for each
The upper boundary of the design domain should percent grade for a right turning vehicle.
also be adjusted for vehicles turning left onto
divided roadways. A proxy adjustment can be Note: Gap times should be increased where
made by substituting the appropriate time turning manoeuvres by long combination trucks
adjustments from Table 2.3.3.2a (0.5s or 0.7s) (length greater than 23m) are common.
into Equation 2.3.3 and adding the result to the

Intersections
c) Other Considerations be an indication of the need for two-way stop

control; since these are above the volume
While all vehicles must stop on the minor range where yield signs may operate
roadway at the stop controlled intersection, satisfactorily and may be below the
certain sight distances should be provided on minimum of the volume ranges required for
the approach for the main roadway in the event four-way stop control or traffic signal control;
a driver violates the stop sign. if an AADT volume in excess of
1500 vehicles is evident at the intersection
The sight line property requirements for this of two local roads, the road classification
condition and for the purpose of providing plan should be re-evaluated)
daylighting or visibility on a two- and four-lane
roadway, can be derived from Table 2.3.3.31 for Signal Control
intersections having a 90º intersection angle. The
size of the daylighting or visibility triangle is a The sight distances and sight triangles required
function of the number and width of lanes, the for intersections controlled by traffic signals are
various design speeds on the main roadway, often determined in the same manner as those
30 km/h on the minor roadway and the right-of- for stop control. Since the intersecting traffic flows
way widths on both roadways, see at a signalized intersection move at separate
Figure 2.3.3.51. times, theoretically, sight distance considering
the minor roadway traffic is not a requirement.
The foregoing is based on the time criterion of 3 However, due to numerous potential operating
s for both the major and minor road approaches, conditions associated with signalized
permitting vehicles on both roadways to adjust intersections, the sight distance for stop control
speeds to avoid a collision. is normally provided as a minimum. The signal
operational conditions that support this practice
Visibility triangle dimensions for skewed include: signal malfunction, violation of the signal,
intersections for two- and four-lane roadways right turns permitted on red, and the use of the
have to be determined by the designer using flashing red/yellow signal mode.
the same principles that were employed for a
90º intersection angle. It is a basic requirement for all signal-controlled
intersections that drivers must be able to see
The controls, as applied to two-way stop the control device soon enough to perform the
controls, may be justified under any one of action it indicates (i.e. stopping sight distance
several conditions, as follows: for red phase).
• at an intersection of a minor road with a The sight distance for right-turn movements on
major road the red phase of a signal-controlled intersection
is the same as for stop control.
• at an intersection of an arterial road with a
collector road or an arterial road with a local 2.3.3.4 Decision Sight Distance
road unless other factors such as volume,
collisions or delay dictate a higher type Minimum stopping sight distance generally
device (four-way stop control or traffic control allows drivers to bring their vehicles to a stop.
signals) However, this distance is often inadequate when
drivers must make instantaneous decisions,
• at an intersection with a collision experience where information is difficult to perceive and
of three or more right-angle collisions per interpret or unexpected manoeuvres are required.
year over a period of three years, where less Drivers may require longer sight distances at
restrictive measures have not been effective critical locations, such as intersections where
several sources of information compete, where
• at an intersection with a total AADT in the the intersection is on or beyond a crest of a
range of 1500 to 8000 (these volumes may vertical curve, or, where there is substantial

0
Table 2.3.3.3 Minimum Property Requirements at 90 Intersections
for Stop Control

Intersections
Figure 2.3.3.5 Sight Distance and Visibility Triangle at 900 Intersections for
Approaches with Stop Control1

Table 2.3.3.4 Summary Table for Design of Sight Distance at Intersections
Intersecting Sight Distance for Intersection Approaches

Road No Control Yield Control Stop Control Signal Control
Minor distance travelled stopping sight distance travelled distance travelled
Roadway in 3 s at design distance (Urban in 3 s at design in 3 s at design
speed to decision 20 km/h; Rural 30 speeds to speeds to
sight distance or 40 km/h) to decision sight decision sight
decision sight distance distance
distance
Major distance travelled stopping sight distance travelled distance travelled
Roadway in 3 s at design distance for the in 3 s at design in 3 s at design
speed to decision design speeds to speeds to speeds to
sight distance decision sight decision sight decision sight
distance distance distance
Intersecting Sight Distance for Intersection Departures
Road No Control Yield Control Stop Control Signal Control
Minor stop control stop control stop control stop control for
Roadway applies applies applies right turns on red
Major stop control unrestricted open roadway condition stop control for
Roadway applies applies right turns on red
Table 2.3.3.5 Sight Distance for Left Turns at Unsignalized

Interchange Ramp Terminals
a
Assumed Design Sight Distance (m) Required to Permit Design Vehicles to Turn Left and
Speed on Minor Clear Approaching Vehicle from Left
Roadway (km/h)
Passenger Vehicle Single Unit Truck Tractor-Trailers
50 95 150 195
60 115 180 235
70 135 210 275
80 150 240 315
90 170 270 355
100 190 300 395
Note: a) Refer to Figure 2.3.3.7.
The sight distance requirements defined in Table 2.3.3.5 are checked against both the vertical alignment
design of the cross road and the horizontal sight triangle. The horizontal sight triangle is affected by the
visual obstruction created by the railing or parapet of the bridge structure. The two sight distance
requirements are illustrated on Figure 2.3.3.7.

Intersections
horizontal curvature on the approach to the 2.3.3.6 Sight Distance at Bridge

intersection area. Structures
Decision sight distances provide designers with Where a bridge is located close to an at-grade
values for appropriate sight distance at such intersection, such as at the intersection of an
critical locations and serve as criteria in evaluating interchange ramp with a cross road adjacent to
the suitability of the sight lengths at these an overpass, particular attention is required to
locations. If it is not feasible to provide these ensure adequate sight distance is provided. This
distances because of horizontal or vertical is due to the potential visual obstruction created
curvature, special attention should be given to by the bridge railing or other structural
the use of traffic control devices for providing components. The typical critical factor, at a ramp
advance warning of the conditions to be intersection, is the sight distance required for
encountered. the left-turning vehicle departing from the ramp
to clear the traffic approaching from the left on
A range of decision sight distance values has the cross road. If the intersection is signalized,
1
been developed, see Figure 2.3.3.6. The range the minimum critical sight distance is then the
recognizes the variation in complexity that may distance needed for vehicles turning right, off the
exist at various sites. ramp, to clear vehicles approaching from the left.
However, as previously discussed, for signalized
Decision sight distance is based on pre- intersections, it is desirable to provide the left
manoeuvre and manoeuvre times converted into turning and crossing manoeuvre sight distance
distance and verified empirically. Pre-manoeuvre associated with stop control to account for
is the time required for a driver to process possible signal malfunctions or similar
information relative to a hazard. It consists of: conditions.
• detection and recognition Using the acceleration time required to travel

these distances, derived from the graphs on
• decision and response initiation times 10
Figure 2.3.3.3 and a perception/reaction time
of 2.0 s, the sight distance required for the
Manoeuvre time is the time to accomplish a departure manoeuvre can be calculated. It is
vehicle manoeuvre. For design purposes the assumed that the distances travelled by vehicles
calculated values are rounded. turning left from the ramp onto the cross road ,
1
before clearing the travel lane occupied by a

For measuring decision sight distance, the height vehicle approaching from the left, are
of eye of 1.05 m is typically used, and the height approximately 18 m for passenger vehicles,
of object of 0.38 m (legislated minimum height 28 m for single unit trucks and 37 m for tractor-
of tail lights) is typically used. For some trailer. The sight distances required for the three
locations, depending on the anticipated prevailing vehicle types and a range of approach speeds
conditions, the height of object may be the on the cross roadway are given in Table 2.3.3.5.
roadway surface, in which case the object height
1
should be 0 m (see Chapter 1.2). The sight distances defined in Table 2.3.3.5 are
checked against both the vertical alignment
2.3.3.5 Summary design of the cross road and the horizontal sight
triangle. The horizontal sight triangle is affected
Table 2.3.3.4 summarizes the above discussion by the visual obstruction created by the railing
on sight distance at intersections relating to the or parapet of the bridge structure. The two sight
four cases: no control, yield control, stop control distances are illustrated on Figure 2.3.3.7.
and signal control.
For the vertical alignment check, the assumed
height of eye for the turning vehicle is 1.05 m for
a car and up to 2.4 m for a large truck (see
Chapter 1.2). The object height in all cases is

1
Figure 2.3.3.6 Decision Sight Distance

Intersections
Figure 2.3.3.7 Measurement of Sight Distance at Ramp Terminals Adjacent to

Overpass Structures

assumed to be 1.3 m, the assumed height of a structure. Where sufficient distance cannot be
passenger car. Where concrete or similar solid provided, traffic signals may be considered at
barriers are used along the cross roadway, the ramp terminal intersection to improve safety.
particularly where the cross roadway alignment In certain rare cases, the provision of mirrors
includes a crest vertical curve, the possible can be reassuring and can reduce the problem
restrictions on sight-line are taken into account of perceived lack of sight distance.
in determining the available sight distance.
For other intersections adjacent to bridge
For the horizontal sight triangle check, the structures, the critical sight distance factors vary
location of the bridge railing or parapet of an with the actual physical roadway layout, traffic
overpass structure is often the critical factor for control and traffic patterns.
sight distance. In the case of a ramp terminal
adjacent to an underpass structure, the bridge 2.3.3.7 Sight Distance at Railway
abutments or piers may be the limiting factors. Crossings
Sight distance at the ramp terminals can be
improved by increasing the lateral offsets from Refer to Section 2.3.13.
the cross roadway to the bridge railings,
abutments or piers, or by increasing the distance
between the ramp terminal intersection and the

Intersections

2.3.12 ROUNDABOUTS D - Inscribed Diameter is the diameter of the

largest circle that can be inscribed within
2.3.12.1 Introduction the intersection outline.
Approximately one-half of the collisions on the R - Entry Radius is measured as the minimum
North American road system occur at radius of curvature of the nearside curb at
20
intersections, where drivers are confronted with entry.
through, right-turn, and left-turn manoeuvres, and
where capacity is restricted. Attempts to provide E - Entry Width is measured from the point A
greater safety for motorists at these points began along a line perpendicular to the nearside
in the 1930s and 1940s with the construction of curb.
traffic circles in several jurisdictions. However,
as a result of design differences and V - Approach Half Width is measured at a point
inconsistencies in assigning right of way and in the approach upstream from any entry
non-uniform signing, these circles did little to flare, from the centreline to the nearside curb,
promote safety and moreover, they tended to along a perpendicular line to the curb face.
20
constrict traffic flow.
∅ - Entry Angle serves as a geometric proxy for
The roundabout, a variation of the traffic circle, the conflict angle between entering and
may provide a solution to these problems in some circulating streams.
instances. In Western Europe and Australia,
ll - The Average Effective Flare Length is found
where this type of intersection is commonly
as shown in Figure 2.3.12.1.
found, changes in roundabout design, along with
changes in traffic regulations, have noticeably
The line GFlD is the projection of the nearside
increased road safety and capacity. Now many
curb from the approach towards the yield line,
road engineers in North America have become
parallel to the median HA and at a distance of V
supporters of roundabouts as a means to reduce
from it.
collisions and improve traffic flow.24
BA is the line along which E is measured (and
2.3.12.2 Roundabout is therefore normal to GBJ),m and thus D is at a
Characteristics distance of [E-V] from B.
Roundabouts are distinguished from traffic l
The line CF is parallel to BG (the nearside curb)
circles by their operational and design and at a distance of [E-V]/2 from it. Usually the
characteristics. The key operational feature is l
line CF is therefore curved and its length is
that traffic must yield at entry to traffic already measured along the curve to obtain l .
l 13
within the roundabout. Deflection of a vehicle’s

path at entry and exit is an important design 2.3.12.3 Categories of Roundabouts
feature. Other salient design characteristics are
entry angles of between 20 and 60 degrees; Roundabouts are typically categorized by the
crosswalks upstream of the yield line; the Inscribed Diameter (D). Table 2.3.12.1
absence of parking in the roundabout; and summarizes typical D ranges for single lane
splitter islands, which reduce speed, deter left roundabouts for each category, the environment
turns, and provide refuge to pedestrians, at all they are typically used in, and the recommended
approaches. maximum entry speed.
Figure 2.3.12.1 illustrates a number of these
significant characteristics. Definitions for each
parameter shown are outlined as follows:

Intersections
Figure 2.3.12.1 Geometric Elements of a Roundabout

Table 2.3.12.1 Roundabout Categories
Inscribed Recommended
Category Diameter (D) Environment entry speed
(m) (km/h)
Mini-roundabout 12 to 24 Urban 25
Small roundabout 24 to 30 Urban 25
Medium roundabout 30 to 40 Urban 35

34 to 50 Rural 40
Large roundabout 40 to 54 Urban 40

50 to 60 Rural 50
2.3.12.4 Typical Range of operational, economical and environmental

Geometric Parameters considerations. A roundabout can be used to:
A number of design references are available to • signify a significant change in road

assist designers in the design process.
25, 26, 27
classification (ie. from a divided to an
Table 2.3.12.2 summarizes the typical range of undivided roadway or from a grade separated
key geometric parameters involved with a intersection to an at-grade intersection),
roundabout. although complete reliance should not be
placed on the roundabout alone to act as
Table 2.3.12.2 Typical Range an indicator to drivers
of Geometric
• emphasize the transition from a rural to an
Parameters
urban or suburban environment
Geometric Parameter Typical Range
• accommodate very sharp changes in route
direction which could not be achieved by
Entry Path Curvature 60 to 100 m radius
curves, even of undesirable radii
Entry and Exit Width 4 to 5 m – one
• provide a greater measure of safety at sites
lane roundabout
with high rates of right-angle, head-on, left/
7 to 8 m – two
through, and U-turn collisions
lane roundabout
• replace existing all-way stop control
Circulatory 1 to 1.2 times the
Roadway Width Entry Width
• accommodate locations with low or medium
traffic volumes, instead of signals
27
In some cases, design guides are intended to
Roundabouts should be sited on level ground
address the movement of large trucks and may
preferably, or in sags rather than at or near the
specify an Inscribed Diameter and other
crests of hills because it is difficult for drivers to
geometric parameters outside of these ranges.
appreciate the layout when approaching on an
up gradient. However, there is no evidence that
2.3.12.5 Location/Application of
roundabouts on hill tops are intrinsically
Roundabouts dangerous if correctly signed and where the
visibility standards have been provided on the
The decision to provide a roundabout rather than approach to the yield line. Roundabouts should
some other form of junction should be based on

Intersections
not normally be sited immediately at the bottom When designing a roundabout the approach
of long descents where the down grade is width is a known fixed value. The capacity is
significant for large vehicles and loss of control thereafter almost totally determined by the entry
could occur. width and the flare length, as typical values of
the other geometric parameters have only a minor
Roundabouts may not be effective when the flow influence.
of heavy vehicles is great or long delays on one
approach exists. Reducing the inscribed circle diameter reduces
capacity. If, however, by reducing the inscribed
2.3.12.6 Geometry/Road Capacity circle radius an increase in the entry geometry
can be achieved, then a large net increase in
As noted above, roundabouts can improve road capacity is produced; very small, mini or micro
safety and increase capacity. Table 2.3.12.3 roundabouts (diameter less than 4 m) are the
provides a summary of the relationship between limiting case. As the entry width increases, the
geometric parameters and capacity. entry deflection is reduced and consideration
should be given to safety.
Capacity is very sensitive to increases in the
approach width V. This is normally the half width Increasing the number of entry lanes or
of the approach roadway and can only be increasing the width of these lanes has the
increased if sufficient roadway width allows the potential for increased traffic conflict. Widening
centreline to be offset. entry lanes is a concern for the safety of cyclists.
The entry geometry is defined by the entry width 2.3.12.7 Safety Analysis
l
E and the flare length l . Capacity is extremely
sensitive to increase in either, and considerable Recent research in Europe has shown that
scope exists for increasing capacity by various collision rates can be decreased by replacing
combinations. conventional intersections with roundabouts. The
Netherlands achieved a 95% reduction in injuries
Increasing the entry radius R above 20 m only to vehicle occupants at locations where
20
improves capacity very slightly. However, as roundabouts were installed. On inter-urban
values drop below 15 m capacity reduces at an roads in France, the average number of collisions
increasing rate. resulting in injuries was 4 per 100 million vehicles
entering roundabouts, compared with 12 per 100
The entry angle ‘∅’is fixed by the alignment of million vehicles entering intersections with stop
the approach roadways and there is, therefore, or yield signs. The safety of roundabouts,
little scope for varying ‘∅’ sufficiently to have a installed mostly in France’s urban and suburban
significant effect on capacity. areas, including residential areas, was generally
20
superior to that of signalized intersections.
Researchers noted that large roundabouts with
Table 2.3.12.3 Geometry/Capacity wide entries and heavy bicycle traffic appeared
Relationships to be less safe than other roundabouts. In
Germany the number of collisions was 1.24 per
Increase Capacity 1 million vehicles entering small roundabouts,
Parameter Change
compared with 3.35 for signalized intersections,
the approach width V rises rapidly 20
and 6.58 for old traffic circles. In Norway an
the entry width E rises rapidly extensive collision analysis also revealed that
l
the flare length l rises slowly roundabouts are safer than signalized
the entry angle ∅ drops slowly intersections. The number of collisions resulting
in injuries was 3 per 100 million vehicles entering
the inscribed circle
three-legged roundabouts and 5 per 100 million
diameter D rises slowly
vehicles entering signalized three-legged (T-)
the entry radius R rises slightly intersections; it was 5 for four-legged

roundabouts and 10 for four-legged (cross-) • poorly designed or positioned warning and
intersections (with and without signals).20 advance direction signing
In the United States, a recent study confirms • “Reduce Speed Now” signs, where provided,
the safety benefits of roundabouts. An being incorrectly sited
investigation of six sites in Florida, Maryland and
Nevada revealed that the conversion of T- and • more than four entries leading to a large
cross-intersections (stop controlled and configuration
signalized) to roundabouts decreased collision
20
rates. According to the study, which was Additionally, safety aspects to be considered in
sponsored by the Federal Highway designing a layout include the following:
Administration, the reduction was statistically
significant. 1. Angle between legs: The collision potential
of an entry depends on both the angle
Given that roundabouts have only recently begun counter clockwise between its approach leg
to appear in North America, roadway agencies and the next approach leg, and the traffic
have had little opportunity to gather empirical flows. A high-flow entry should have a large
data on the safety benefits of the structures. angle to the next entry, and a low-flow entry
Fortunately, similarities between collision- a smaller angle in order to minimize
prediction models developed in the United collisions.
Kingdom for roundabouts and those developed
in the United States for cross-intersections allow 2. Gradient: While it is normal to flatten
agencies to compare in theory the safety of both approach gradients to about 2% or less at
types of intersections. Both the U.K. and the entry, research at a limited number of sites
U.S. models yield estimates of collisions has shown that this has only a small
20
resulting in nonproperty damage. In addition, beneficial effect on collision potential.
both models use state-of-the-art regression
analysis (Poisson and negative binomial) and 3. Visibility to the left at entry: This has
samples of sufficiently large size to relate comparatively little influence upon collision
collisions to particular roadway characteristics. risk; there is nothing to be gained by
On the basis of these similarities, one could increasing visibility above the recommended
draw the conclusion that roundabouts in the level.
United States have the potential to increase
safety when compared with conventional Care should be taken with the choice of curb
intersections, just as they are projected to do in type for roundabout design. A safety problem
the United Kingdom. can arise when certain specialized high profile
curbs are used around a central island as they
Nevertheless, notwithstanding their good record, can be a danger to vehicles over running the
great care should be taken in layout design to entry.
secure the essential safety aspects. The most
common problem affecting safety is excessive Observations have shown that these curbs can
speed, both at entry or within the roundabout. result in loss of control or overturning of vehicles
The most significant factors contributing to high unless the approach angle is small and actual
entry and circulating speeds are: vehicle speeds are low. Where high profile curbs
are to be used on approaches, the curbs can be
• inadequate entry deflection hazardous for pedestrians and consideration
should be given to the provision of handrails to
• a very acute entry angle which encourages control pedestrian movements.
fast merging manoeuvres with circulating
traffic High circulatory speeds cause associated entry
problems and normally occur at large
• poor visibility to the yield line roundabouts with excessively long and/or wide

Intersections
circulatory travel way. However, these problems One note of caution should be sounded - the
can also be caused at smaller roundabouts by safety record of roundabouts for one group of
inadequate deflection at previous entries. The road users is mixed. Pedestrians using
solution to high circulatory speeds usually has roundabouts have long been considered at least
to be fairly drastic, involving the signalization of as safe as those using conventional
problem entry legs at peak hours. In extreme intersections because the prevailing speed is
cases the roundabout may have to be converted slower, and the islands provide refuge from
to a “ring junction” in which the roundabout is automobile traffic. However, many countries have
made two-way and the entries/exits are documented increases in collisions involving
controlled by individual mini or normal bicyclists after roundabouts were installed. On
roundabouts, or traffic signals. the other hand, the Netherlands reported a
decrease of 1.3 to 0.37 injuries per year to
If entry problems are caused by poor visibility to bicyclists at 181 conventional intersections
the left, good results can be achieved by moving converted to mini-roundabouts.20
the yield line forward in conjunction with
curtailing the adjacent circulatory hatching or
extension of the traffic deflection island.

REFERENCES 10. Highway Geometric Design Guide, Alberta

Transportation and Utilities, 1995
1. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario
Highways, Ontario Ministry of 11. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
Transportation, 1985. and Roadways, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials
2. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (AASHTO), 1994
for Canada, Transportation Association of
Canada, 1998. 12. Harwood, D.W., et al., Median Intersection
Design, NCHRP Report 375, National Co-
3. Kuciemba, S. R., Cirillo, J. A., Safety operative Highway Research Program,
Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Transportation Research Board, National
Volume V: Intersections, Publication No. Research Council, 1995.
FHWA-RD-91-078, US Department of
Transportation, Federation Highway 13. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol.
Administration, November 1992. 6, Section 2, Part 3, Geometric Design of
Roundabouts, Department Standard No.
4. Accident Facts, 1968 and 1988 Editions, TD 1693, Department of Transportation,
National Safety Council, Chicago, IL, 1968 U.K., September 1993.
and 1988.
14. Crown, R. B., RODEL – An Alternative
5. Neuman, T. R., Jack E. Leisch and Approach to Roundabout Design Highway
Associates, Intersection Channelization and Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 10, Journal
Design Guide, National Co-operative of the Institute of Highways and
Highway Research Board (Report 27a), Transportation, U.K., October 1987.
National Research Council, Evanston,
Illinois, November, 1985. 15. Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting,
Transportation Association of Canada,
6. Jack E. Leisch & Associates, Planning and 1982.
Design Guide for At-Grade Intersection,
1978. 16. Road/Railway Grade Crossing Manual,
Transport Canada, 1997.
7. Hanna, J. T., Flynn, T. E. and Webb, L. T.,
Characteristics of Intersection Collisions in 17. Canadian Capacity Guide for Signalized
nd
Rural Municipalities, Transportation Intersections, 2 Edition, Institute of
Research Record 601, Transportation Transportation Engineers, June 1995.
Research Board, 1976.
18. Traffic Control Signal Timing and Capacity
8. David, N. A., Norman, J. R., Motor Vehicle Analysis at Signalized Intersections,
Collisions in Relation to Geometric and Ontario Ministry of Transportation,
Traffic Features of Highway Intersections: December 1989.
Vol. II – Research Report, Report No.
FHWA-RD-76-129, Federal Highway 19. Kenneth Ackeret, Criteria for the Geometric
Administration, July 1979. Design of Triple Left-Turn Lanes, ITE
Journal, Volume 64, Number 12, December
9. Parker, M. R., et al., Geometric Treatments 1994.
for Reducing Passing Collisions at Rural
Intersections on Two-Lane Highways: Vol. 20. Bared, J., Roundabouts Improving Road
I – Final Report, Report No. FHWA/RD- Safety and Increasing Capacity, TR News,
83/074, Federal Highway Administration, No. 191, Transportation Research Board,
September 1983. July-August 1997.

Intersections
21. Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic 25. National Cooperative Highway Research
Calming, Transportation Association of Program Report 672 “Roundabouts: An
Canada, 1998. Informational Guide, Second Edition”
Transportation Research Board,
22. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report Washington, D.C., 2010
209, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, 1994. 26. Roundabouts: A Different Type of
Management Approach, Ministere des
23. Design Vehicle Dimensions for Use in Transports du Quebec (MTQ), 2005
Geometric Design, Transportation
Association of Canada, 1997. 27. B.C. MoT Supplement to the TAC Geometric
Design Guide, 2007
24. Synthesis of North American Roundabout
Practice, Transportation Association of
Canada, 2008

barriers; bridge rails and transitions; and end 2. Semi-rigid systems provide reduced lateral
treatments. Discussions of the design domains barrier deflections, but higher vehicle
for each of these barrier types are presented in deceleration rates. These barrier systems
each individual section, and in keeping with have application in areas where lateral
traffic barrier design procedures, generally restrictions exist and where anticipated
address: deflections must be limited. They usually
consist of a strong post-and-beam system
 technology overview and have design deflections ranging from
0.5 m to 1.7 m. Designers must familiarize
 design domain: warrants themselves with, and design to, the specific
performance characteristics of their
 design domain: selection criteria selected or candidate technologies.
 design domain: placement guidelines 3. Rigid systems usually taking the form of a
continuous concrete barrier. These
In this Guide discussion on specific barrier technologies result in no lateral deflection,
technologies is limited to general coverage of but impose the highest vehicle deceleration
generic barrier types to clarify overall design rates. They are usually applied in areas
questions. Barrier technologies are constantly where there is very little room for deflection
being refined and further developed. Designers or where the penalty for penetrating the
should maintain currency in the availability and barrier is very high. Numerous shapes are
characteristics of specific technologies on an available including a higher version for use
ongoing basis. where there is a high percentage of trucks.
In addition to the design domain discussions, Typical examples of these barrier technologies
worked examples of the application of the are summarized in Table 3.1.6.1.
design principles are provided.
Embankment Warrants
Technology Overview
Roadside hazards that warrant shielding by a
In accomplishing their task of guiding and barrier include embankments and roadside
redirecting impinging vehicles, a roadside obstacles. In the past, techniques for
barrier must balance the need to prevent determining barrier need for embankments
penetration of the barrier with the need to generally used embankment height and side
protect the occupants of the vehicle. Various slope as the key parameters in the warrant
barrier technologies achieve this in various analysis, and essentially compared the collision
ways, but they can be grouped into three distinct severity of hitting a barrier with the severity of
types: going down an embankment.
1. Flexible systems result in larger lateral Warrant nomographs can be developed using
barrier deflections, but the smallest vehicle collision prediction and cost-effectiveness
deceleration rates. Such systems have analysis techniques which do consider both the
application in places where a substantial probability of an encroachment occurring as well
area behind the barrier is free of as the relative cost-effectiveness of shielding
obstructions and/or other hazards within the 4
versus not shielding . In general, such warrants
zone of anticipated lateral deflection. These are agency specific since they must reflect
barrier types usually consist of a weak post- unique local conditions, collision cost factors
and-beam system, and their typical design and agency policies. Examples of such a
deflections are in the range of 3.2 m to warrant procedure are shown in Figure 3.1.6.1.
3.7 m. Designers must familiarize They are examples from specific jurisdictions
themselves with, and design to, the specific and are neither a general warrant nor are they
performance characteristics of their applicable to all types of barrier (e.g. cable
selected or candidate technologies. barriers) and are not intended for general use.

Roadside Safety
Table 3.1.6.1 Examples of Roadside Barrier Technologies
Flexible Systems Semi-rigid Systems Rigid Systems
3-strand cable Blocked-out W beam (strong post) Concrete safety shape

W-beam (weak post) Blocked-out thrie beam (strong post) Stone masonry wall
Thrie-beam (weak post) Modified thrie beam
Box beam (weak post) Self-restoring barrier (SERB)
Steel-backed wood rail
As noted earlier, the development of new cost 1. Shielding non-traversable terrain or a

effectiveness analysis techniques provides roadside obstacle is usually only warranted
designers with a preferred option for evaluating when it is in the clear zone and cannot be
the need for roadside barriers. The techniques economically removed, relocated, or made
represent a considerable improvement over the breakaway, and a barrier provides a safety
general nomograph approach, since they provide improvement over the unshielded condition.
designers with the ability to consider site-specific
factors in their analysis. They are strongly 2. Collision experience at the site (or a
recommended to designers concerned with comparable site) should be used to help
making the most cost-effective use possible of decide on the placement or omission of a
their roadside improvement and protection barrier in marginal cases.
budgets.
3. In practice, few traffic signal supports are
Roadside Obstacle Warrants shielded.
Man-made and natural roadside obstacles can Pedestrians and Bicycle Warrants
be classed as either non-traversable terrain or
fixed objects, and their character and presence In some situations, a measure of physical
directly define needs for shielding. Warrants for protection may be required for pedestrians or
shielding should be developed using a bicyclists using, or in close proximity to, a major
quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis which street or highway. Examples of such cases
accounts for the obstacle characteristics and could include: a barrier adjacent to a school
its likelihood of being hit. boundary or property to minimize potential
vehicle contact; shielding businesses or
Table 3.1.6.2 provides an overview of the types residences near the right of way in locations
of non-traversable terrain and fixed objects where there is a history of run-off-the-road
which are normally considered for shielding. collisions; or separating pedestrians and/or
This table is presented as a general guide to cyclists from vehicle flows in circumstances
discerning situations in which cost-effectiveness where high-speed vehicle intrusions onto
analysis of shielding should be carried out but boulevards or sidewalk areas might occur.
is not a substitute for that analysis.
In all these cases, conventional criteria will not
A number of application heuristics should be serve to provide warrants for barriers, and the
considered when the shielding of roadside designer must be cognisant of the needs and
obstacles is being considered. circumstances of the individual situation when
deciding on appropriate action.

20,21
Figure 3.1.6.1 Sample Embankment Warrant Guides

Roadside Safety
Table 3.1.6.2 Roadside Obstacles Normally Considered for Shielding
Terrain or Obstacle Comment
Bridge piers, abutments, railing ends Shielding analysis generally required

Boulders Judgement: nature of object: likelihood of impact
Culverts, pipes & headwalls Judgement: based on size, shape, location
Cut slopes (smooth) Shielding analysis not generally required
Cut slopes (rough) Judgement: based on likelihood of impact
Ditches (parallel) Refer to earlier section on drainage channels
Ditches (transverse) Analysis generally required if head-on impact likelihood
is high
Embankments Judgement: based on fill height and slope
Retaining walls Judgement: based on wall smoothness and angle of
impact
Sign, luminaire supports Shielding analysis for non-breakaway supports
Traffic signal supports Shielding analysis for isolated signals in the clear zone
on high speed (80 km/h or greater) facility
Trees Judgement: site specific
Utility poles Judgement: case by case basis
Permanent bodies of water Judgement: depth of water, likelihood of encroachment
Barrier Selection Criteria must consider several factors in specifying the

final layout. These include:
Once a barrier need has been established, a
specific barrier technology must be chosen for • lateral offsets from the edge of travelled way
the application. Since each installation is unique,
and given the complexity of the road • terrain effects
environment, there is no simple “recipe” for
selecting the correct barrier technology to use • flare rate
in any given situation. Nonetheless, there are
well established criteria that designers should • length of need
consider when reaching this decision, with the
ultimate goal being to choose the system that A set of design domain placement heuristics
provides the required degree of shielding at the developed from various literature sources is
lowest overall cost. Table 3.1.6.3 can be used provided below which cover most typical issues
as a guide to this selection process. arising from the design of roadside barrier
installations.
Placement Heuristics Lateral Offsets
A typical roadside barrier installation and its 1. In general roadside barrier should be placed
associated elements for a two-lane, two-way as far from the travelled way as conditions
road is illustrated in Figure 3.1.6.2. permit, in order to provide greater recovery
area for errant vehicles and sight distance,
Having decided that a barrier is warranted and particularly at intersections. However,
chosen the appropriate technology, the designer roadside barriers should not usually be

REFERENCES 10. Traffic Manual, Section 1-04: Nomenclature:

CALTRANS, Sacramento CA. 1978.
1. Final Report: Improving Roadway Safety:
Current Issues. Roadway Safety 11. Ray, M.H., McGinnis, R. “Guardrail and
Foundation. Washington, D.C. February, Median Barrier Crashworthiness” NCHRP
1997. Synthesis 244 Transportation Research
Board. Washington, D.C. 1997.
2. Sanderson, R. “Fixed Objects - The North
American Perspective”. Paper presented at 12. “Recommended Procedures for the Safety
the 1996 AQTR Symposium on Fixed Performance Evaluation of Highway
Objects and Road Safety. May, 1996. Features”. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) Report No.
3. “Roadside Safety Issues” Transportation 350. Transportation Research Board.
Research Circular 435. TRB, Washington, Washington, D.C. 1993.
DC. 1995. P.8.
13. Roadside Safety Manual. Ministry of
4. Roadside Design Guide, American Transportation of Ontario. Toronto, Ontario.
Association of State Highway and 1993.
Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.
1996. 14. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges.
American Association of State Highway and
5. Turner, D.S., Hall, J.W., “Severity Indices Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.
for Roadside Features: A Synthesis of 1996.
Highway Practice”. NCHRP Synthesis of
Highway Practice 202. Transportation 15. Guide Specifications for Bridge Railings.
Research Board. Washington, D.C. 1994. American Association of State Highway and
6. Mak, K.K., Sicking, D.L. , Zimmerman, K. 1989.
“Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP)
- A Cost Effectiveness Analysis Procedure”. 16. Design of Highway Bridges
Preprint of paper presented at 77th Annual CAN/CSA-S6-88. Canadian Standards
Meeting of the Transportation Research Association. Toronto, Ontario, 1988.
Board. Washington, D.C. 1998.
17. Prioritized Contract Content Guidelines.
7. Highway Design and Operational Practices Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. St.
Related to Highway Safety. American Catherines, Ontario. 1997.
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C. 18. Riggs, J.L., Rentz, W.F., Kahl, A.L., West,
1974. T.M. “Engineering Economics”. McGraw-Hill
Ryerson Limited. Toronto, Ontario. 1986.
8. Standard Specifications for Structural
Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 19. deLeur, P., Abdelwahab, W., Navin, F.
and Traffic Signals. American Association “Evaluating Roadside Hazards Using
of State Highway and Transportation Computer-Simulation Model”, ASCE,
Officials. Washington, D.C. 1994. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.
120, No. 2, March/April, 1994.
9. Guide for Erecting Mailboxes on Highways.
American Association of State Highway and
1994.

Roadside Safety
20. Roadside Barrier Warrant Manual. Nova 21. Roadside Design Guide. Alberta
Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure and Transportation, Edmonton,
Infrastructure, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2003. Alberta, 2007.

TAC 2011 Road Design Guidelines

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TAC 2011 Road Design Guidelines

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Connecting Knowledge and People  Le lien entre les gens et le savoir

Title Page – Part 1 and 2

To update your Guide simply follow these instructions:

Transportation Association of Canada Association des transports du Canada

© Transportation Association of Canada, 1999

December 2011 Page 1.1.4.3

Page 1.1.4.4 September 1999

1.2 DESIGN CONTROLS

1.2.2 HUMAN FACTORS ..................................................................................... 1.2.2.1

1.2.3 SPEED ........................................................................................................ 1.2.3.1

1.2.4 DESIGN VEHICLES ..................................................................................... 1.2.4.1

1.2.5 SIGHT DISTANCE ....................................................................................... 1.2.5.1

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 1.2.R.1

December 2011 Page 1.2.i

Page 1.2.ii December 2011

Table 1.2.5.4 Stopping Sight manoeuvre as shown in Figure 1.2.5.1, which

40 45 60 - 70 d2 Distance travelled while the passing vehicle

60 75 - 85 105 - 130 d3 Clearance length. The distance between the

Certain assumptions about driver behaviour are

September 1999 Page 1.2.5.5

first phase opposing vehicle appears

second phase d1 1/3 d2

Page 1.2.5.6 December 2011

December 2011 Page 1.2.5.7

Page 1.2.5.8 December 2011

Table 1.2.5.7 Decision Sight Distance4

Design Speed Decision Sight Distance for Avoidance Manoeuvre (m)

50 75 160 145 160 200

60 95 205 175 205 235

90 185 360 275 320 360

120+ 305 505 375 415 470

Notes: Avoidance Manoeuvre A: stop on rural roadway.

December 2011 Page 1.2.5.9

Page 1.2.5.10 September 1999

REFERENCES 10. Lamm, R., Heger, R. and Eberhard, O. Op-

December 2011 Page 1.2.R.1

26. Synthesis of Safety Research Related to

Page 1.2.R.2 December 2011

2.1 ALIGNMENT AND LANE CONFIGURATION

2.1.2 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ....................................................................... 2.1.2.1

2.1.3 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ............................................................................. 2.1.3.1

2.1.4 COORDINATION AND AESTHETICS ........................................................ 2.1.4.1

2.1.5 CROSS-SLOPE ........................................................................................... 2.1.5.1

2.1.6 BASIC LANES AND LANE BALANCE ........................................................ 2.1.6.1

December 2011 Page 2.1.i

2.1.6.3 Coordination of Lane Balance and Basic Lanes ............................ 2.1.6.2

2.1.7 LANE AND ROUTE CONTINUITY AND WEAVING ................................... 2.1.7.1

2.1.8 TRUCK CLIMBING LANES ........................................................................ 2.1.8.1

2.1.9 PASSING LANES ........................................................................................ 2.1.9.1

2.1.10 TRUCK ESCAPE RAMPS ........................................................................ 2.1.10.1

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 2.1.R.1

Page 2.1.ii September 1999

September 1999 Page 2.1.iii

Page 2.1.iv December 2011

Figure 2.1.4.11 Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination

December 2011 Page 2.1.v

Page 2.1.vi September 1999

Figure 2.1.2.1 Dynamics of Vehicle on Circular Curve1

f = the lateral friction force factor • frequency of slow-moving vehicles

In a condition where f = 0, the entire resistance Rural Areas: Design Domain

September 1999 Page 2.1.2.3

weather conditions, or for other reasons, Urban Areas: Design Domain

Example: Design Speed = 100 km/h; 4. Superelevation is generally not applied on

e = pavement superelevation (m/m) 5. On collector roads superelevation is used